Getting the best result: quality tips

Once you are working with a mechanical part, these factors make a real difference to output quality.

What tends to work well

• Clean exports directly from CAD or drawing software, rather than scans or compressed preview images
• A clear isometric or perspective view, not only flat orthographic views
• A single, clearly bounded part with standard features: holes, external threads, hex flats, fillets
• For photos: up to four angles roughly 90 degrees apart, grouped as one part set

What tends to make results weaker

• Photos with no visible scale reference. Without something to judge size against, or a size stated in the part brief, dimensional accuracy cannot be assessed at all.
• Low-resolution or compressed preview images. An image pulled from a web page is typically far more compressed than one exported from its original source, and that shows up directly in output quality.
• Assemblies of multiple parts. These generally reconstruct well today, especially from clear isometric views — but the result is a *single unified mesh*, not separate, individually editable bodies per component. If separated components matter for your use case, say so in the part brief.

A note on quality scores

Every result includes a quality assessment reflecting things like geometric match to the source, whether dimensions could be verified, and whether the mesh is manufacturing-valid (watertight). A lower score does not always mean something went wrong — sometimes it reflects a genuinely hard case — and a higher score does not guarantee production-readiness for critical dimensions.

Getting a better result

1. Add more photos from different angles if you submitted a single photo.
2. Provide a scale reference — a visible dimension, or a note in the part brief.
3. Sharpen the part brief — see Using the part brief effectively.
4. Request [Engineer Built](/help/what-is-hifi-cad) for parts where dimensional accuracy actually matters: a human design engineer rebuilds and dimensionally verifies the part as parametric CAD instead of relying on automated reconstruction alone.

And whatever you upload, expected or unexpected: if the system surprises you, good or bad, we would genuinely like to hear it.