Hello, thank you for sharing your experience.
I can relate to what you’re describing because I’ve been observing a very similar issue ever since I purchased the Metro X.
When I first received the scanner, I was genuinely impressed. The mesh quality and fine detail reproduction were outstanding. I spent a considerable amount of time developing an optimized workflow, saving my scan parameters, and achieving highly consistent results.
Everything changed after updating Revo Scan from version 5.7 to 5.8. The degradation in mesh quality was immediately noticeable. Fine details that had previously been captured accurately became significantly less defined, even though I was using the exact same hardware, objects, lighting conditions, and scanning parameters.
I contacted technical support and requested version 5.7. It took some effort to convince them because I believed I had lost my original installation file. Eventually, they provided me with a copy of version 5.7. However, even that version did not perform exactly like the original installation I had been using.
A few weeks later, I unexpectedly found my original 5.7 installer on a USB drive. I installed it, replacing the version sent by technical support, and the difference was remarkable. The mesh quality immediately returned to the level I had experienced when I first purchased the scanner. This strongly suggested that there was some difference between the original installer and the one I received later, despite both being labeled as version 5.7.
I reported these findings to technical support, but they told me such a difference was impossible. I asked for a technical explanation, but unfortunately I never received one.
Then, about two months later, Revopoint introduced the Metro Y.
This sequence of events naturally raises questions. Is the reduction in quality an unintended consequence of software development? Are updates being released before they have been thoroughly validated across different workflows? Or is there another technical explanation that customers simply haven’t been given?
I’m not interested in promoting conspiracy theories or making accusations without evidence. However, from an engineering perspective, it is difficult to ignore a pattern where an older product appears to lose performance shortly before a newer model is released. Correlation does not prove causation, but it certainly deserves a transparent explanation.
As users, we invest not only in the hardware but also in the software ecosystem. We expect software updates to preserve—or improve—the performance of the products we have already purchased, not reduce it. Greater transparency from Revopoint regarding software changes would go a long way toward maintaining user confidence.
