Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.
If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.
Best Of
Re: Optimization Solver - New Feature on fs.place
Looking through the code - bit similar indeed….great minds think alike?
@MichaelPascoe - very different solution to Konstantin's
But this all proves why I made fs.place - we need a better way to search for features.
Optimization Solver - New Feature on fs.place
I've gotten a number of request over the years for features that have a measurement based constraint such as perimeter or area. The topic has also come up on the forums a few times (https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/18610/how-can-i-use-perimeter-as-a-constraint). My answer to the question has always been - to optimize a surface/body you have to decide how to vary it, which requires design intent. Coding design intent into a feature is fine, but it isn't easily generalized.
But then the obvious solution hit me - just derive configured instances. Allow the parametric model to solve all the difficult design intent modifications to the model.
Introducing my new feature: Optimization Solver
This feature derives a given model for a specified range of a configuration variable - measuring the geometry at each step - and keeping the step that is closest to a provided target.
The user can then improve on the result by reducing the range of inputs, until a satisfactory result is reached.
This effectively allows for perimeter constraints in sketches (albeit with some design process caveats), and inferred dimension constraints.
In the public demo document I have a cube constrained to a volume, a sketch constrained by the face area and another sketch constrained by total edge length.
This is a paid feature - available on fs.place along with many other high quality features.
But you can check out the public demo document here:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/82977c81d8aa2257b510e34a/w/a390c39e796c3c583a22dc9b/e/ea2a19509efb13f407c22f6d
Re: Improvements to Onshape - January 10th, 2025
Thanks for the feedback @EvanReese @chadstoltzfus @Nick_Holzem . Some of what you're asking for is already planned.
@MK81 This is not implemented yet, but coming soon.
ilya_baran
Re: Improvements to Onshape - January 10th, 2025
@ilya_baran I've had a chance to use configuration visibility now, like the others have already said more logic would go a long way.
Adding and/or options, range setups, or inclusive search/sort would be even more valuable.
We'd like to set up clearance model assemblies that start from a large pick list. Then sort down based on brand, length, or other attributes and options. Multiple filter options could be chosen to narrow down options or kept broad. Most shopping websites have this sort of filter. Men's or women's, clothing type; tops/bottoms/jackets/base layer/outerwear, size, color etc. Its important it allows multiple selection per category.
The link Michael Pascoe shares a link to an improvement request with more examples. I'm glad to see this one come to fruition, configuration publisher in SolidWorks was something I had used with in a previous role. It had some shortcomings but was useful. I think Onshape has a chance to knock it out of the park.
Thank you
Re: Improvements to Onshape - January 10th, 2025
Is there a way to add variable studios to configurations? Or is this feature yet to be implemented
I want to have different configurations of the variable studio, which affects all parts in the document. Currently, we can only add local variables to a configuration table, which only affects that part.
MK81
Re: Untrim?
I had the intention to create a feature like this and first had a look if someone else hadn't created it yet.
I stumbled upon this thread and used a little of the code as inspiration. thanks @Jacob_Corder
I decided to include 'approximate' as an option because the underlying precise bSpline data is also available and will also allow untrimming a bigger outside boundary
its far from complete in error-proofing, debug options, feedback etc, so not worth publishing yet, but i thought i'd share it here anyway:
for other surfaceTypes than bSpline surfaces, the code would need to use other create functions.
for some those are available, (like sphere), but not for all. so I'm not sure if that is going to work out to allow recreation without approximation. Moreover trimming to the outer boundary is going to be tricky i think (for the 'inner loop only' option.
Re: Why I cannot give dimension to a circle?
That sounds exactly what we need, will check that out next time 👍️
EDIT
Next time could not wait, tried it immediately and it is fantastic! Do follow the instruction video though, struggling through takes a bit more time 😆
Re: Render Studio
I had assumed my colleague had a Pro license but unfortunately it is only a standard version
Thank you for you help
GWS50
