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: Where to Start Students
Hi Jason,
When teaching CAD I tend to think it diminishes some of its potential when it’s taught as a functional skill in isolation.
I like to use the Toolset : Skillset : Mindset framework for any technology application in education - iPads, CAD, 3D printers…
In this case the tool is Onshape, the skills are sketching, extruding, assemblies etc… the “tricker” facet therefore is the mindset - how will students develop a mindset where they try to solve issues when they arise, how can they apply x skill to y problem or context, how can they ask a pertinent question, how do they know what they don’t know (CAD packages are broad and deep!)
For me, these are as important as the funcional skills and will need careful curriculum planning. I normally start my asking by the end of this section what (1)’do I want them to know (facts, definitions, icons, vocabulary etc) and (2) what do I want them to be able to do (add a constraint, explain their design intent, revere engineer an existing design, optimise something etc).
This tends to help my focus when designing lessons: less is normally more!… What is fundamental, and what is “nice to do.”
I am always happy to elaborate, collaborate or share!
All the best,
Ed
Re: Best method - drawing this furniture
Not sure what your concerns are. start a part add a plane for top surface. draw 2 sketches on each plane for half of it. loft it and mirror. done. don't know what a conjunction is.
MDesign
Re: Under defined Box, won't turn Black
Consider the degrees of freedom your rectangle has. Assuming the sides are constrained to be horizontal or vertical:
- The sides can change length.
- The entire rectangle can move in the sketch plane.
You've constrained #1, leaving #2.
You have several options. You can drag one of the vertices onto the origin, which should create the coincident constraint, which will constrain the rectangle's movement. Often, dragging one thing onto another will implicitly create the constraint you want. You can also, say, use the dimension tool (shortcut is d) to specify the distance between the origin and a pair of sides. Each will constrain movement in a specific direction.
_anton
Re: Under defined Box, won't turn Black
If you hope to understand the terminology that others speak of, its best to run through the basic courses of the learning center. Can you link youtube video for reference? basically michael is saying you need to dimension the location of the rectangle with respect to the origin of the design or in relation to other parts of the model if they already exist. basically so the program knows that your don't want the rectangle 100 feet way from where it currently in case something upstream of the that feature changes.
MDesign
Re: Under defined Box, won't turn Black
@gary_cummings - Remember when you start a new sketch, The origin is the only thing that is fixed in 3D space, and at least one piece of geometry needs to be 'anchored' to it, or your sketches will never be fully constrained. This 'anchoring' can be done with constraints, dimensions, or a combination of the two. I would also like to say, that all the above suggestions, seem valid as well.
Re: Under defined Box, won't turn Black
@ gary_cummings Constraints are one of the more confusing things for beginners to get a handle on. You need to know what they are, and how they are used. Search "working with constraints" in the help section - or take the free beginner classes in the "learning center". I suggest you start a practice sketch and play with all of the various types of constraints (create lines, arcs, and points, then "constrain" them together) and do this over, and over. Get a feel for the different way, that each type works. While you are learning, you might want to check the "show constraints" box, in the sketch user interface (UI).
You must also learn about inferring constraints at the time of geometry creation ( this can cause trouble if you do it without knowing - and is one of the tougher things to track down and correct later). Spend some time to learn this skill - it is important. This subject is not to hard to understand - but is very hard to describe, using only words.
Re: Why can't OnShape generate "oversize" chamfers? (Question/Feature Request)
Thanks for the response both of you.
@neilcooke I’m surprised I’m the first to raise this. I’m willing to accept maybe I use chamfers strangely. It’s possible there’s an easy workaround i’m not thinking of, or “macro chamfers” are typically modeled without using the chamfer feature.
When you next get the opportunity, please ask customers who use chamfer whether they run into the restriction and if so, how they deal with it. Would love to know. Maybe it’s not been reported because simply it’s always possible to “manually” build a self-intersecting chamfer, and there are “bigger fish to fry”.
Regarding “parasolid does not allow it”, I take that to mean it would be non-trivial to implement, which I have respect for.
It seems, then, that for this capability to be prioritized, it would have to be shown to be valuable enough to customers to be worth the effort. If so, I’ll try to gather evidence of this, although I am not well connected with OnShape users. I’m currently just going on instinct, and I’m willing to discover I’m wrong to think this would be a valuable improvement.
Also, just spitballing, perhaps an implementation could try to use parasolid’s “native” chamfer and, if it fails, retry with a more sophisticated approach that support self intersections. I’m happy to try to implement a featurescript prototype of that “sophisticated” approach, to show its potential value (and that it’s possible). Not sure how far I’ll get to be honest. I am a software developer by trade, but I’ve found the foundations of FS difficult to grasp so far.
@martin_kopplow ”direct modelling editors have less or no issues”
Yes, this is absolutely correct. Blender, for example, is sometimes inperfect but almost always allows chamfers to be pushed into self intersection.
Re: Why can't OnShape generate "oversize" chamfers? (Question/Feature Request)
For posterity, here is the improvement request I submitted:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/25801
(thanks to @s1mon for the nudge)
Re: Why can't OnShape generate "oversize" chamfers? (Question/Feature Request)
Have you tried to use the face blend feature in chamfer mode? I wonder if would be able to handle this...
