Hey! I'm a cofounder and the CTO of this company. Want to lead with saying its an absolute privilege to be on the front page of this site and have all of you try this model and give us your feedback. Your time and attention is valuable and is absolutely not taken for granted. Our model is SGS-1, and it will continue to improve in future versions. Want to address a few points made by others here.

> can generate fully [...] parametric 3D geometry. >> This is obviously a lie without even testing it. STEP files do not have any sort of support for parametric features.

This is a simple misunderstanding/semantic issue. We aren't trying to misrepresent anything, we (and some others in the research community) interpret parametric as "being composed of primitives with parameters". We have an internal representation we don't expose to users, and we convert that to a B-Rep STEP file which we do expose.

>> Every dimension is wrong aside from the one that I corrected to get the same scale (there doesn't appear to be any correct relative to each-other which is why I just picked one at random)

Visually this output looks close. There are some gaps, but looking at your screenshot, features like the main hole going all the way through are underdetermined. It's very hard for a model to know because even if the hole did not go through the input would look the same. All of this can be fixed by having richer input conditions, and we are actively working on this for SGS-2

>Yes, this is also confusing me to no end. How can they make such a claim? They even explicitly state that they generate a B-rep (boundary representation) output only, then in their roller example they say "as the output is parametric, dimensions can easily be adjusted." Erm, no? I'd rather model it again with the proper feature history tree and constraints instead of fiddling with a step file.

SGS-2 will include a feature tree representation, so this should be more easily editable than this (which should already be easily editable in many cases as well with direct modeling). Several engineers already work with STEP files in their work for to the best of my knowledge.

Thanks once again for all the feedback! We are incorporating all this into our next model.

> This is a simple misunderstanding/semantic issue. We aren't trying to misrepresent anything, we (and some others in the research community) interpret parametric as "being composed of primitives with parameters". We have an internal representation we don't expose to users, and we convert that to a B-Rep STEP file which we do expose.

No officer I wasn't speeding, I have an internal definition of velocity that you don't have access too and it doesn't say I was speeding

Look - this is a really bad answer in a lot of ways, but rather than excoriate you for it, i'll try to be helpful by pointing out a simple fact:

You are saying that it does some things. Literally everyone who could ever want to pay you money to use this or future models are going to try it, see that it does not appear to do what they expect for those things, and then:

1. Not want to pay you money

2. Be much harder to attract again in the future. Once bitten, twice shy.

This seems like a bad plan?

> we (and some others in the research community) interpret parametric as "being composed of primitives with parameters".

Well guess what? You're wrong.

You seem to be generating output files compliant with ISO 10303-214, this standard has been withdrawn and replaced by ISO 10303-242, edition 4 of 10303-242 has just been published.

I don't get why people are downvoting this due to the parametric claim.

Yes, STEP files don't have a feature tree and cannot be parameterized. I read it as OP saying that under the hood there __is__ parameterization before the final export to STEP.

This means that they could expose this in the future, say if they chose to output to FreeCAD FCStd or even some proprietary format like Solidworks (via $$$ CAD translator packages).

This is just my read - I'm not affiliated and have no internal knowledge to Spectral or SGS-1, but I have worked deep in building CAD plug-ins and custom software for manufacturing automation.

All that said, the demo model quality has issues and many are unmanufacturable (with subtractive means at least) - so there's still along way to go. But I don't think the presentation of their capabilities is disingenuous.

Congrats on the launch of v1, keep going!