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
Feedback, pricing model, and big fears for the future.
And I really don't mind your pricing model. The free plan is the reason I'm using it and I actually like the constraint that designs must be public, since it agrees with my GPL biases. The business plan prices seem perfectly reasonable for businesses, and if I had one that needed CAD I'd be happily paying for it.
However, I have one big Fear, and it's big enough that every time I start a new design I re-consider switching to something else.
I'm terrified that at any moment OnShape will suddenly be unusable for me, and all my designs will be lost, and all my effort into making them will be wasted. This absolutely is the reason I have not invested any time in learning and contributing Feature Script. "Unusable for me" could mean priced beyond my means as a hobbyist, priced beyond the other hobbyists I want to share my designs with, "merged into our product line" by a new owner who wants to kill it in favour of their other products, have the free tier crippled into uselessness to force people onto too-high priced tiers, left to decay into a poorly supported mess by bean-counters maximising profits, or just go bust and shut down. I've been lucky so far and glad I chose OnShape over Fusion360. I'm not the only person scared by this; see

When I design something, I want to come back to it in 5 years, 10 years, or even longer and have it still be there, ready for me to make a v2.6 or re-use it for something else. Heck, I want my kids to be able to re-use it. As an Open Source developer there is code on GitHub I wrote more than 25 years ago that is still maintained and fairly widely used. Note that I don't have the same fear with GitHub as I do with OnShape, because GitHub is based on Open Source tools for distributed repo's, so I do have my own copies of everything and all the tools to use them. If GitHub blew up tomorrow, my projects would be fine, and I've migrated software projects off dead/dying platforms before (remember SourceForge?). But if that happened with OnShape, I don't really have any escape options, and that scares me enough to consider not even bothering with it.
By far, the worst thing about this is I pretty much know already that it's (almost) inevitable that OnShape will become unusable for me at some point. No matter how much you guys cry "we would never do that" and even genuinely mean it, eventually the financial incentives will win out and the profit reaping and cost cutting will begin. After working 17 years at Google, which started out as the most genuinely moral and altruistic company I'd ever seen, I've seen it happen before from the inside.
The problem is your business model is pretty much a definitive example of the enshitification model (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification). Right now you are in the "offer useful products and services at a loss, as a way to gain new users" phase, which is why you have the free tier with barely any limitations. However, once you guys achieve peak market penetration and have locked your users in, the enshitification will begin, and no matter how hard individuals at OnShape try to resist, financial forces will slowly win; users will be forced to pay more, costs will be cut, and the product will start to degrade. The first thing to go will be the free tier, because there is zero financial reason to keep doing it once you've got all the users you are going to get. It will probably not be killed instantly, which might scare users off, instead it will be killed incrementally by moving features to the paid-tiers only, and/or changing "free" to "cheap, but slowly getting more expensive".
So what can be done? Corey Doctorow suggests two things; respect of the end-to-end principle, and the right of exit. Unfortunately I cannot see any incentives for a company to do this; it might help ease people like me's fears to encourage joining and retention, but in the end we are not the customers who can be forced to pay much, and the "right of exit" (and to a lesser extent "end-to-end", when you figure out how monetise design sharing) undermines the whole "milk them when they are trapped" plan. So this could only be done by legislation, which I can't see happening.
So what can actually be done? The only thing I can think of is to try and change the business plan so that there are financial incentives in place to try and stop this happening.
I might not be able to justify paying for a business plan, but I am willing to pay what may be a surprising amount to help ensure OnShape stays useful for me and people like me. I would happily pay OnShape money for nothing more than what I'm already getting on the free plan, just to try and make sure it's still going to be there for me in the future. I'm sure there are many others like me. So what if in addition to the free and business plans you added a "patron" option, where people can make (regular?) donations of whatever they feel like to ensure OnShape stays useful for them? There doesn't need to be any differentiation in features/functionality/support between the free and patron users. You could maybe lean in on the social/sharing features you have and encourage people to make a donation to OnShape if they use and like a public design.
My hope is that if patron donations become a significant enough source of revenue, there will be financial incentives to grow and satisfy those users, which means continuing to provide a good free service. And maybe OnShape can still be around hosting my designs for my grand-kids to marvel at :-)

Re: First sketch, only 1 square and still not defined
Have you constrained or dimensioned your square relative to the origin or two planes?

Re: First sketch, only 1 square and still not defined
Hi Jules,
so first, please make sure you understand what 'fully defined' means:
"a sketch is "fully defined" when its relations and dimensions have complete control of its size, shape, and position."
that square you drew: when you pick a corner you can still drag it anywhere. that means it's not fully defined.
when you put a dimension on one side, and e.g. constrain the height and width of the square with an equal constraint, its now a proper square (iso a rectangle) with a defined size. however the position of it is not yet defined. so if you make the origin of the part studio visible and put a coïncident constraint on the corner and the origin, it will define the position as well. all lines will go black and the sketch will be fully defined.
sketch 2 is probably fully defined because either you didn't draw anything in it yet, or what you drew auto-constrained to existing geometry..
These are very basic things and like Micheal suggested, the onshape learning pathways will give you a better fundamental understanding of what your doing than resorting to this forum each time you run into something.
Re: How to check why a regeneration failed?
A way to "sidestep" this entire issue is to keep the "blocks" you want to pattern as a separate body (i.e. separate part) and use a part pattern.
This will be more robust than a face pattern, especially when the pattern involves a number of faces like this.
Re: tangent mate: tangent propagation limited?
(Sorry - I was looking at this on a mobile browser, and the tangent lines looked solid). I very much doubt this is the issue, but there is an angular tolerance for when edge lines show as phantom indicating tangent. I don't know if that tolerance is any different than the "tangent connected" selections or tangent mate tolerances.

Re: Vertex on revolve axis
Although technically not self intersecting. It's kind like asking a computer or calculator to divide by zero. Error

Re: Should I split my questions, Stack Overflow style?
I post the vast majority of my questions or observations in General. It's frustrating when people don't search first for answers, but it's also frustrating when people reply to 5 year old threads which are no longer relevant because things change and improve every 3 weeks. Having topics change radically during the course of a thread is weird, but follow-ups seem perfectly fine.
