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: 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...
Re: cad.new no longer working
Good to know, thanks for acknowledging. Mostly just wanted to know it was being tracked.
Re: The simplest sketches are marked as 'not fully defined'
The most common thing that beginners miss, is constraining, or dimension to the origin. Try to get in the habit of using the origin as the starting point for your sketches if possible - if this can't be done then you will need to dimension or constrain your sketch geometry to the origin (or other fixed geometry, if it exists). The origin is the only thing that Onshape recognizes as being fixed in 3D space when you start a new sketch (you have to use it, if you want to fully define a sketch).
Re: Relationship between identical parts in OnShape
Since the beginning of parametric modeling (proE) there has been an assembly & parts.
20 years ago they allowed multiple bodies in a part and this problem began, why use assemblies?
The main issue with parts in parts is instancing which doesn't occur in part studios. Why not? I don't know.
This one thing is true, you will begin in a part studio and finish in an assembly. Your design will have both a part studio & an assembly. This seems silly when you have a small project with a few parts. But for many projects, there's 1,000's of parts and 100's of sub assemblies. In reality, for larger projects, you're managing assemblies not parts.
You really have to learn assemblies. You can't short circuit the process and only know part studios. There is a lot of emphasis on part studios and how quickly you can build a concept, but you won't go into production with that.
Successful projects will always have great BOM's and BOM's are only generated from assemblies.
billy2
Re: How are people dealing with things that are measured by length on a BOM?
Yes it's less than perfect and I would prefer a better way but for now at least we can insert the information somewhere to be reused if we order again from the CAD model. In the past we would just deal with it at the order process but we would need to start all over the next time..
