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: Rendering Named Positions? Decals?
Wow, the difference in ease of use between Decal in a Part Studio and applying a sticker, bitmap file, and projector in Render Studio is crazy.
Unless there is another set of instructions some where, I could only find this Tech Tip, which is out of date and very hard to follow. I watched this video multiple times and re-read the post a bunch of times in order to finally get this basic rendering task to work. Projectors now have a very different interface, and figuring out that the Bitmap file function needs to be dragged onto the tiny color swatch took me a lot of tries to figure out.
The idea of layering functions and appearances can be powerful, but why does the target for drag and drop need to be so obscure? Is there any other spot where dragging the bitmap file function would make sense - why can't I just drag it onto the whole appearance panel? Why isn't the file option just part of the sticker appearance in the first place? Why is a bitmap file a function, and projectors have their own icon? Why is the projector grouped with transform?
Oh, and I had to version the document to get imported images in the same document as the render studio to show up in the picker for bitmaps. I kinda get why this works that way - it's more like how drawings need to be updated even in the same document, but we need the yellow update button for this to be more consistent. Versioning the document is left out of the Tech Tip. Sure it streamlines the video, but if you don't do it, it's a bit of a head scratcher.
Then I looked up how Keyshot handles Labels. It's so much more straightforward and powerful. Even Cadmio which runs on an iPad can add decals quickly and easily. Solidworks Visualize is more like the decal feature in Part Studios, and because it handles animation, you can even apply video as a graphic.
S1mon
Re: Rendering Named Positions? Decals?
Simon has a point, here.
I have been using Keyshot for years. That is not an integrated app, and relies on 'classic' file exchange with a CAD system. Still, with the update function, rendering like say closed/open doors or other things that move to an alternative position, appeared much faster so set up than we see in OS now, even though OS would have the original model to refer to at any time. Between Keyshot and Spaceclaim (which I was using), I would just move one part or assembly (using some constrained translate operation) in the CAD and hit the update button. The model in the render window would update, no new materials need to be assigned. I could render that alternate setup right away.
I must admit I was expecting the OS render studio to work pretty much directly on the CAD model and am a bit disappointed that it is more or less a separate world with it's own behaviour and rules. It misses the point of cloud based parametric design and so it misses out on some great opportunities.
My whishlist is:
- Rendering is just another tool.
- It is applied in the same environment as the other tools.
- Rendering itself happens as an overlay in the same window or tab as the modeling.
- Once assigned to a part in the model, render appearances 'stick' to the part.
- If I insert an instance of a part that already has an appearance, it is there with the new instance.
- Apperances appear in the tree and/or as a property of a part/face/feature.
- Appearances respect instances (like materials do).
- Renderings are versioned and probably also released, just as drawings (The're at least as important!).
- A proper appearance editor and library.
- t.b.c. …
I am not a software guy, but I will work for money, outlining that one, should need be.
Re: Routing curve & Control point curve - Introduction of two new features for 3D curve creation
For plumbing drain lines, I imaging that having a consistent slope down which stays at that minimum angle regardless of the run is essential. How would that be accomplished with the routing curve? It’s easy to make a point lower than another point by a fixed amount, but not a slope, unless I’m missing something.
S1mon
Re: Would like to keep the blue part within the gray walls, not sure how to go about this.
To get the blue part within the grey walls will depend on how you created the blue part. Please share a link to your document and make the document copy-able. Most likely you just need to sketch and extrude the blue part after the grey part has been made. This way you can constrain your sketch to the grey walls.
The forum is fantastic, but don't forget to check out the Onshape Learning Pathways if your interested in learning how to Onshape better.
Re: Seeming Bug
More than likely, the last entity that was added also had some automatic constraints which conflicted in a way which over defined the sketch. Try showing constraints. There’s probably one constraint which can be deleted which will fix it.
S1mon
Re: Routing curve & Control point curve - Introduction of two new features for 3D curve creation
I was very excited to read '3D Curve Creation' in the title. But, honestly, it isn't what I was hoping for. I can see a really powerful feature, and although I understand it, it feels too complex and mathematical. A very good custom feature for those looking for this kind of complexity, but it doesn't feel like a native Onshape feature to me.
I am still hoping for a SW-like 3D sketch in Onshape-sauce, where you can just sketch away intuitively in all directions using existing sketch tools and relations, without making numerous fixed planes that limit how you can dynamically adjust the shape. Is there still any hope for something like this?
Warning and Issue with Two Co-linear Opposing Tapped Holes
Hi there,
I have a cylindrical solid bar. In each end, there is to be a counterbore/cylindrical cutout for the shoulder of a shouldered socket head cap screw, plus a tapped hole. The direction of the threads in the taps will oppose each other.
I modeled the bar as an extrude. I modeled the shoulder cutout features as extruded cuts. I then created a tapped hole with the hole feature on one end as shown in image 1. It is an M4x0.7mm tap 10mm deep, with the pilot hole being 14mm deep, to allow room for a plug tap. Call this tap1.
I then move on to create the second tapped hole feature. It is to have the same drill and tap depth as the previous tapped hole. Call this tap2. To do this, the drilled regions of tap1 and tap2 will intersect, but the threads won't. However, when I try to create tap2, what I get is an error saying "the hole does not intersect the part". I do not get this error when I reduce the drill depth of tap2 to be such that the drilled regions from tap1 and tap2 don't intersect (as seen in the image below).
Therefore, the issue is independent of the thread depth. The error message is incorrect. The drilled hole for tap2 does intersect the part, and would remove material, up until it reaches the drilled region from tap1. It seems that the hole feature doesn't allow intersection with another hole feature.
From a manufacturing perspective, it may be bad practice to drill and tap tap1, then drill and tap tap2 (as the order is described above). In actuality, you'd likely drill the pilot hole thru the part (in onshape, use an extruded cut), then tap from either end (in onshape, two separate tapped holes). However, I cannot replicate this last workflow in onshape, as the "tapped hole feature" will have a warning saying that it doesn't interest the part (no geometric change), and the hole won't generate.
Therefore, I'd like two things:
- Perhaps an explanation from someone who works for onshape explaining why this is the behavior of the feature. I see this as a valid limitation to current modelling capabilities. This part can definitely be manufactured, but can't yet be modeled in onshape. If I am incorrect, please do let me know!
- A possible workaround, so that I can portray the threads from the two threaded holes in a drawing with the correct depth of tap2, and be able to send a drawing for this part to our manufacturer on time.
Thank you for any information you're able to provide!
Zane
Re: Any way to simplify imported step files?
Hey @bill_curl,
This is a current workaround for this issue:
Can you try importing using the default options, then go to the top level assembly and exported it as IGES (though other formats would probably be fine) which strips out the curves (since there are no curves in assemblies). Then re-imported it as a Part Studio and it should be much more performant.
Hope this helps.
