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: Custom Feature: Tweep
No the waffles are coming later, I promise.
Edit: eh why not release early? @ry_gb the waffles are over here.
Re: Can this have been done any better?
Use Nicks suggestions and I have some more for you. With the available info in the pictures I would not import them. The info can be measured off the parts quite cleanly. Up to you but I wouldn't stretch into 2 part studios. Sweeps to get the initial shape will works well. Any symmetry that can be made use of is good. Myself I always pic something symmetric about the origin if I can. Save any fillets/chamfers to near the end of the feature tree and avoid using in sketches. Much simpler to update/correct later. If you continue with multiple part studios create a variable studio so all variables are available to all studios. With a little more time you could probably use less fillets and chamfers than I did.
Re: Need help with copying scanned shape
Here's the start of a possible workflow. You could work in patches and connect them later to add fillets. There's not going to be a silver bullet for this though. The way to get the cleanest surfaces is to just re-model it using the scan as a visual reference though instead of trying too hard to "convert" the mesh to something usable. It depends on your needs though. Maybe you don't need super clean surfaces as long as it prints and fits.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/c5bcdd03054352380d190fed/w/690360e41db73d191690792e/e/b98cb991114a182783f1809d
Re: Is there an official Onshape introduction Video aimed towards non-cad view only users?
I used to have one on the old channel but it was taken down. I need to remake it. There's enough new UI anyway. It's on my list!
Grouping Sketches
I have a student who has built 3 sketches that he wants to group, in case he wants to move all the sketches around in the document. How do we do this? Thanks!
Re: Angled spars through ribs
Philosophically more or less. Minor differences in my implementation. Firstly I'm picking a primary face on my ribs that already exists to project to instead of trying to go middle out. Secondly I'm using a function called opCreateOutline instead of creating a sketch for my projection method. Thirdly I chose to use opThicken instead of an extrude. The core reasoning for this is that sketch geometry constrains you to planar geometry and there's a world where I want to normalize a rolled surface. All of these functions should be applicable to a curved domain instead of pigeonholing my script to only work in flat land.
Re: Angled spars through ribs
I have the core essence of a solution to this in 456D Make but I haven't yet enabled the non-perpendicular ribs cases or independent control of plane spacing. What I'm doing in the script is projecting the non-normal wall faces back to the primary and then thickening them the slice width and removing the geometry to normalize the cuts. Future updates will include skew slicing support.
So essentially I'm doing a Boolean intersection (actually subtract_complement for ID stability reasons) between the two members, splitting that body in half along the pull direction, and Booleaning each half of the intersection with one of the slices, letting the faces be skew.
Then apply a normalization script that does the project>thicken>remove process. It handles simple geometry extremely well, more complex geometry so-so.
Re: Custom Feature: Loft Fillet
@jelte_steur_info that's almost exactly the torture test I had in mind where evDistance would be a superior lofting method than the path parameterized method. It would be worth maintaining both methods as an option because there's no silver bullet for all situations.
Re: Assemblies - I would love to see planes in assembly mode - what am I missing??
After 9 years and nearly 6000 hours of Onshape I keep running into things that would just be made simpler if assemblies just had planes, but I don't mind too much since you can drop a mate connector on the origin and orient it to any of the planes you'd use anyway. The bigger challenge is that assembly origin doesn't would exist in higher-level assemblies. This matters even more now that assembly mirror exists. If you mirror about a mate connector on the origin it'll come apart in the next assembly up, which means that you need some actual geometry to either own a mate connector or just be the mirror plane. This could use some streamlining.
Re: Custom Feature: Keep Part
Nice! Very handy to have and a good counterpart to my Keep Face feature. I do personally feel that these should both just be part of the native features with a "Delete / Keep" horizontal enum at the top.