Best Of

Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for to create a part with multiple spheres.

I can think of two ways you can do this;

1. I know for a fact you can do this batched via the API, provide the assembly URL and part name mapping, and "some" python code. However, I've never done the python-API coding myself so I can sadly not help in that end.
2. Any set of properties can be combined and written within a computed part property featureScript. I.e. if the majority of the parts would combine the part name and description into this new Customer-Facing-Name, that can be achieved in such script that write to the new Customer-Facing-Name property. This I have done loads and can help with if it's of interest.

From my understanding (and my experience doing the same), changing something in the BOM table only propagates forward if the item in the table both resides in the document, AND is the "main" workspace part/subasm, not a version/revision.

I've never found a quick way to do it. I end up going to the part studio of each part, and changing the properties there.

when you offset a line, the end points are not restricted. (that's why they're blue (underconstrained) rather than black)

so if the position of the end points can move, so can the middle point.

So resticting through dimensions/constraints/helplines the end points is the probable solution, although you could also constrain/dimension the middle line and lenght of the offset line.

e.g. make the end points vertical to the end points of the original line…

These are great insights. I'm not a ID, I was a web designer than turned mechanical engineer. I found I had so many overlapping skills with IDs. I think I've had the privilege to watch ID from the side. The engineer in me is interested in the system of design. And I see the output being prototypes, screen renderings etc. And then people managing the business are suppose to take these outputs and make decisions. From my 20 years experience doing this I've boiled it all down to risk management. A design is only as good a positive result from trustworthy consumer insights study, because the risk of it being not accepted by the target consumer has evidence to prove it's ok. People feel safer to say lets go with that. Business decisions are a leap of faith because even engineers can guarantee anything. Can get lucky on the market, or it flops and it had nothing to do with how well the design process was done.

I see robust modelling as an enabler for collaborative design. And on Onshape it's even more enhanced. In web design, content management systems liberated the designer from becoming a "web master" and having to update lines of HTML code. I used CMS systems to enhance the design process, my clients could start with the content and I could use the content to design a better website. Some years later when I was a CAD tech in SW, I had a boss who always wanted to see the design first and then make changes. This is when I developed robust CAD methods. My web development experience helped, as I was driving the design with central variables. I could sit with my boss and go, what configuration do you want? It was real time collaboration with the decision maker. I was reducing risk too, because if he got new information to a design better, he knew it was a quick change on my end.

In startups adaptation was the best mindset to have. In large organisations with scale it's a different kind of risk management. Trying to sell the concept of robust modelling is proving challenging. Even if I do make a convincing demo, it's lost on them as it's so far ahead of what they are use to. The silo mindset = passing on troubles to other departments /outsource it. The worst part of it is this unfounded belief things can't be done differently. That's the worst because it suggests there's not much hope for it ever changing. Hence for being a bit lost and lonely in this quest and want to connect to some like minded experts. The Onshape team have also been great.

Perhaps entity attribute tagging and query variables would then go beyond the robust category and fall into the adaptive category. But yes, totally possible if you set it up correctly.

Fyi the easiest way to tag and find entities with attributes is currently with the Query Finder. This is a very different approach from using the built in Query Variables as query variables are actually saving queries not just tagging entities with an attribute. I found that both have their perks and their limitations.

Tagging an entity with an attribute, will keep that attribute with the entity even if the entity splits into several different parts or has a boolean applied to it, which can be useful downstream. However, it does not search for a query so new edges will not be found. This way can also let you pass selections through derives, which is not possible with a query variable at the moment.

Query variables or just queries are excellent because the query search can be re-evaluated on use, so it would even find new edges. But if the edges are not within the original query like with a split or boolean for example, it may not find the edges since its a different query all together.