I've gotta say...

Hi all,

Just for some background, I’ve been working with the Structure Sensor on and off for nearly 2 years now. The time spent so far has been quite interesting. Being introduced to the original sensor and working with it for so long was quite fun. Although there were some model texture optimizations that I have really been hoping for, I have been satisfied with the quality of the models the original sensor produced. The abrupt switch to the Mark II, was definitely not so smooth. There definitely were a lot of kinks that needed to be addressed, it definitely was not as good of an experience as with the original sensor, and it definitely would make you reconsider investing in the product at all. But I have to say, despite some of the recent negative posts in the forums lately, my experience with the Mark II since the release of SDK 0.10 has improved a lot.

To provide some more context here’s a few of the major issues my team and I have been facing since working with the Mark II:

At this point, I think it’s safe to say that these issues have been addressed or minimized for us and are now nonissues.

I started out somewhat frustrated with the product since the experience clearly didn’t start out on par with the original. But by being active in the forums voicing my issues, by communicating with other developers, and by directly communicating with the Occipital dev team, I was definitely able to turn my experience with the Mark II around. I can now say my team’s scanning experiences with Mark II are on par with the original sensor and produces models that are more defined that the original. These last few SDK releases and firmware update addressed a lot of the major concerns for my team and has significantly improved our confidence in the product.

There has been an overwhelming amount of negative feedback from us developers in the forums lately, so I felt I should just interject and make my experience known to give some hope to some frustrated developer. Maybe this post won’t mean much and I know that my experience doesn’t guarantee that things may turn out good for you but I hope now you might be more hopeful.

To my fellow developers, I feel the frustration you may have at times, I went through it and may experience it again in the future. I just suggest to patient, understanding, and as active as you could be in the forums, a solution may be on the way. And to those who have been fortunate enough to be able to resolve some of their own problems, speak up a bit more, it could definitely be reassuring to others that this product is not as bad that some are making it out to be. I, for one, will try to do that a bit more, gotta be the change you want to see.

To the moderators, I appreciate some of the feedback we get, but to be completely honest, I think it definitely would help if the were some more consistent dialogue between you and us developers in the forums. Some transparency and more frequent updates could definitely ease the frustration of some developers. If no one else says so, I appreciate your help in advance. And also, you can expect a DM with an invoice for this post very soon. JK.

:v:

9 Likes

:laughing: re: invoice!

2 Likes

@ecajuste I was right about to buy the Structure Sensor Mk II but then I started reading exactly what you reference here: a lot of negative feedback from developers.

So, as somebody who isn’t a developer and just wants to have a 3D scanner that’s relatively easy to use, is it worth getting? Or should I look elsewhere?

Thank you in advance.

1 Like

Hi @TheThomas, to be completely honest, it all depends on a few things. Based on other users’ experiences, it’s clear that the sensor may come out of the box with a few issues, but I would base my decision to buy on whether your intended use of the sensor is worth the time to correct these issues. If you only plan to use the sensor just for fun and generate a few scans, you might not be as willing to put up with these issues up front, but it’s still your call. However, if you have bigger plans, like building an application around the sensor, then I would encourage buying a sensor.

Thank you for the response @ecajuste

Ultimately, I’d like to be able to produce scans similar in quality to the one Occipital uses to advertise:
image

Some of the forum comments I’ve read make it sound as though scanning anything at all is hard, even for somebody with developer Know-How. From what you said above, though, these ARE correctable issues. Correctable for the Average User or for Developers Only?

Again, thank you for the response.

No problem @TheThomas. From my experience, the issues should be correctable for all users, not just developers. I don’t recall any fixes for any of the major issues needing any additional fixing from me outside of the SDK updates, sensor firmware updates, and calibration fixes that are supplied through the stock applications.

Once the issues are corrected, you should definitely be able to generate decent scans like the one in the image above using the Scanner application, however, developing your own application and utilizing the SDK directly will allow you manipulate settings to increase the quality of the models.