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: 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..
Re: How are people dealing with things that are measured by length on a BOM?
I'm using measure to variable
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/cc0e00cacc4401e125d7b538/v/64654998d1fc0bdab81da256/e/664be2af6a89989fb5e02bc5
I'm doing a lot of plumbing requiring me to understand flow rates, velocities and how much does something weight? Would you put 700 litres of water inside a computer rack on the top shelf? What's the flow velocity through a weir? Measure to variable is working for me.
The thing I'm struggling with is the length of a beam appearing in the BOM. I know it can be done, I just haven't figured it out yet.
@nick_papageorge073 can you please elaborate? Are you changing it's name or setting a length property?
billy2
Re: Why can't OnShape generate "oversize" chamfers? (Question/Feature Request)
There have been requests in the past to make chamfers more robust in general. This case here appears to be only one example. Just yesterday have I had an issue with chamfers not resolving after a change in geometry, even though the very area where it would create said Parasolids issue was not actually part of the model, because another piece of the solid took that place, and the edges involved would never actually meet. But since it is not uncommon (also with other software), I worked around it by modifying the model history. That would, however, mean that if - for any reason - someone wanted to change the geometry again, it could be necessary to modify model history again. That is not the spirit of a feature driven modeling approach. So, even if Aidan's case is one of a kind, the underlaying issue of chamfers failing whenever their edges meet (even if it was in a distance that is no longer part of the model at the time of editing), is still generally important. It appears direct editing modellers have less or no issues with this case.
Re: Can I search by material for a list of parts that use it?
Could search by assigned material be implemented? The custom property isn't a deal breaker by any means, hell it might even be the better solution, but it would be nice to search by assigned.
Re: Why can't OnShape generate "oversize" chamfers? (Question/Feature Request)
@aidan_fraser the reason we don't do it is because Parasolid does not allow it. Thanks for the improvement request. This is the first time anyone has asked for this capability, so until it has been reviewed and implemented it might be quicker to create a custom feature if you need this every day.
