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: Improvements to Onshape - January 31st, 2025
@nick_papageorge_dayjob Creo and SW are indeed priced higher, but Fusion is the critical threat when it comes to CAM and small companies. Take a look at their pricing.

Re: CAM Studio
OS staff mentioned it may be coming later to EDU users. I'm assuming they mean the EDU enterprise accounts tied to a school, not the individual EDU accounts that any person on the planet can sign up for.
Re: Improvements to Onshape - January 31st, 2025
Are you kidding? Other common CAD programs like Creo and SW are about 4,000 USD per year, and they don't have PDM or CAM at that price. OS is a bargain for companies.
Can I "merge" disjoint parts?
- Selected all the "desired" faces and extrude. That give me M parts, one for each contiguous set of sketch elements
- Union those extruded parts but they don't intersect so nothing happens
- Create one extrusion as "new" and then extrude the rest of the faces for that set as "add" with the extrusion part as the scope. Still had a bunch of parts.
I see that I could create all the individual parts and then assemble them with connectors but that seems like a lot of work and since they are not contiguous, I'd have to redo all the offsets manually.
It may be that I'm just trying to do something that OnShape is not designed for but I'm hoping I'm just missing something. Thanks in advance.
Jeff
Re: Improvements to Onshape - January 31st, 2025
Some great updates!
I had a quick play around with CAM, and maybe it's just me, but I feel like it's nowhere near ready. The inner machining menus feel clunky and difficult to navigate, especially when working with designs that are more complex than the example part provided. It’s quite challenging to get the desired results efficiently.
I'll check out the "Intro to CAM" section and hopefully, that will help make things easier to navigate.

Mates are bad and driving me insane. (it's a bit of a rant)
As so often, the devil is in the detail.
Have two parts that already in the position they should be in? Good effing luck connecting them with mates. I constantly get rid of the first mate connector I already placed on the first part while trying to place the second mate connector on the second part. And then the order the mate connectors are listed matter. And while you can change that after the fact, I have a sneaking suspicion it differs (even if it shouldn't) if you add them in the correct order, or if you add them in the wrong order and reorder them later in that list.
And then you run into the issue that the freshly placed mates are moving in the wrong direction. So you either have to live with a negative rotation, or flip that axis (I come back to that later). And negative rotation breaks limits. Because the minimum angle of a rotation has to be bigger than the maximum. Makes sense. Except it doesn't because limiting a rotation from 0 deg to -150 deg DOES NOT EQUAL the limit from -150 deg to 0 deg. The former does move, the latter doesn't.
And don't get me started on sliders. (Too late)
Here is how a sane person mates a slider (in image with a Y offset, as overlapping structures [mates] are hard to see):


So what would a sane person think the mate would move? Right: down the rail. Well aside that it would be more intuitive for a slider to mate the top part of a rail to the bottom of a slider, but that's beside the point.
But where does it really move? Right! The opposite direction. *Faceplam*

So you have to live with negative movements, or … flip the axis. You would assume, flipping the axis would just invert the movement direction, but no, instead it does this:

Welcome to FYL. … Ok, then rotate the secondary axis then (twice): And you end up with:

AND THERE IS NO Z OFFSET! Oh, no, that would make it too easy.
Instead, you have to go into the mate connector, edit that, choose move there and pray, that your part is one with a neat length. If you ever designed a part that has to go at an angle between "part A" and "part B" you might end up with a weird fraction. Have fun dial that in.
The real "fun" begins if you have linkages linked … in a "circle". Like: part A is connected to part B, part B is connected to part C, part C to part D, and part D is connected back to part A. The slightest aliment error, and onshape will complain everything is wrong. Good luck finding the mistake on more complicated assemblies.
Or when using imported parts, you don't have detailed sketches of (and hence dimensions are a bit of guesswork or turning them back into sketches).
I tried to update my primitive slider* with that prefab linear rail.
*= In a construct that converts linear motion to rotational.
My construct turns a ~70 mm linear motion into a ~170 deg rotational one (base to yellow arm) without taking up too much space vertically.


And this is the result:

Possible solutions to make it work:
- Get Fastened 2 aligned correctly (it connects the commercial rider to my one), which is near impossible.
- Delete/suppress Fastened 2, not an option, that makes the commercial rider move in sync.
- Suppress/delete Slider 1. Not an option, it has the constraints and is part of Named Positions (another can of worms*)
- Delete/suppress Fastened 2, not an option, that holds the commercial rail in place.
- Suppress/delete the redundant Slider 2. (Which is what I did, but I should not have been forced to. Slider 1 and 2 move in parallel).
Let's open the can of worms that is Named Positions. As simple as the idea is: Safe movement states for later. As broken it is.
(To follow along, please look at the pictures without the commercial rail)
I had to define the angle of the yellow arm on top of the slider position: Or the link would bend randomly in the wrong direction (I was unable to predict when and why), or would report a movement isn't possible. Even if animate did it just fine, and so did the part movement tool.
Even then, I will get in states where it proudly proclaims: Movement not possible. I have to grab the part and move it just a tiny bit manually, and then it works. TH!

Constraining dxf "shape"
I was wondering if there was a way to constrain an dxf shape in a sketch. Currently, dxfs are just connected points together. The only way to resize it/move it is using the transform tool. If you try to move any individual points it affects the proportions of the dxf. However, I am wondering if there is a way to make it so that the perimeter of an dxf is constrained, so that you can manually move/resize it like you would any primitive shape.
Re: Improvements to Onshape - January 31st, 2025
Wow, sheet metal forming, sketching improvements, excluded drawing content, stacked callouts, this stuff will get use from day one. Very happy to see these features finally roll out of production🎇
Re: Improvements to Onshape - January 31st, 2025
Great update!
"CAM Studio opens up a lot of possibilities and makes Onshape much more competitive against some other CAD tools, although the pricing is quite a bit different."
Technically yes, practically no, it is not competitive at these prices.

Re: Improvements to Onshape - January 31st, 2025
This is HUUUUGGGEEEE !! Well Done Holy Molly!
Love all the drawings space improvements, love the keyboiard shortcuts and I've had the CAM for a while now as a BETA tester but nice to see it's hitting the main stream.
I must say I've noticed that the CAM is aimed at metal work for now which I assume is why HOMAG machines have not yet been added to the list. For over a year now I've wondered if I'd ever get a chance to properly test the CAM out so hopefully that is still on the horizon.