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 - August 12th, 2024
@ilya_baran
Like @S1mon says, one common use case is an assembly shown with a door open or closed where some parts are flexible so named positions don't cut it. With "exclude from properties" the parts don't show as different items anymore which is great.
There might also be sub-assemblies that are affected in the same way like an OTS component that can be in two different positions, a limit switch for example. Even if named positions could work for this, if you need a separate "door closed" and "door open" config, you want to include the switch position in the config (not have to also pick a named position).
Another use case is when you have a top level assembly that can be assembled in different ways: for example a reversible bracket that the customer can install one way or another (or when a part is installed a specific way during shipping and gets re-positioned for installation). It's still the same assembly and part number but requires different configurations.
As far as the release is concerned, the process shouldn't be different from parts with excluded properties. A warning in the release dialogue would be a good idea if that's not already there (haven't tried that yet...).
Maybe a related question: does a part released with excluded properties allow switching its config in the released state (i.e. effectively releases all the config permutations as one PN) or does it only release the "Default"? I could see how this could be an issue if only the "default" is released...
Like @S1mon says, one common use case is an assembly shown with a door open or closed where some parts are flexible so named positions don't cut it. With "exclude from properties" the parts don't show as different items anymore which is great.
There might also be sub-assemblies that are affected in the same way like an OTS component that can be in two different positions, a limit switch for example. Even if named positions could work for this, if you need a separate "door closed" and "door open" config, you want to include the switch position in the config (not have to also pick a named position).
Another use case is when you have a top level assembly that can be assembled in different ways: for example a reversible bracket that the customer can install one way or another (or when a part is installed a specific way during shipping and gets re-positioned for installation). It's still the same assembly and part number but requires different configurations.
As far as the release is concerned, the process shouldn't be different from parts with excluded properties. A warning in the release dialogue would be a good idea if that's not already there (haven't tried that yet...).
Maybe a related question: does a part released with excluded properties allow switching its config in the released state (i.e. effectively releases all the config permutations as one PN) or does it only release the "Default"? I could see how this could be an issue if only the "default" is released...
Re: Improvements to Onshape - August 12th, 2024
@ilya_baran
One possible situation is one I struggled with a lot at my last position - how to manage multiple colorways for a product. Some would argue that this should be done with different part numbers for each colorway, others use variants, which could be done as a "dash number" (e.g. <part number>-<variant>). I've also seen colorways managed more at the PLM level, and then the CAD model wouldn't want to be burdened with new part numbers, but we might want to have the ability to configure the assembly to show how the colorway would look.
One possible situation is one I struggled with a lot at my last position - how to manage multiple colorways for a product. Some would argue that this should be done with different part numbers for each colorway, others use variants, which could be done as a "dash number" (e.g. <part number>-<variant>). I've also seen colorways managed more at the PLM level, and then the CAD model wouldn't want to be burdened with new part numbers, but we might want to have the ability to configure the assembly to show how the colorway would look.
See: https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/17941/variants-in-enterprise
The other common thing I could see is having an assembly with a flexible part (e.g. a spring) that needs to be shown in two (or more) positions. These positions wouldn't be done with Named Positions since configs (with exclude from properties) would need to be swapped for the different amounts of compression/extension of the springs. The positions would need to use configs (at least until there are true flexible parts like in some other CAD systems), and we wouldn't want there to be new part numbers for them.
The other common thing I could see is having an assembly with a flexible part (e.g. a spring) that needs to be shown in two (or more) positions. These positions wouldn't be done with Named Positions since configs (with exclude from properties) would need to be swapped for the different amounts of compression/extension of the springs. The positions would need to use configs (at least until there are true flexible parts like in some other CAD systems), and we wouldn't want there to be new part numbers for them.
S1mon
3
Re: Error code: SIGILL i
The only thing we send to the browser is a webpage, so there is something going on between your browser and operating system. Did you try a different browser?
Re: Improvements to Onshape - August 12th, 2024
Careful... with quality improvements like this, no other software will be able to keep up!
I especially appreciate the FS improvements. Thank you team!
Re: FS cPlane angled plane
You are probably better off using opPlane. Ultimately, cPlane is calling opPlane, it just has some extras for the user.
All you would need to do is calculate the normal direction of your plane (and the origin), which will be a lot less work.
qCreatedBy is failing because the Id is that of a sketch entity, but that query type takes in the feature id ("angledPlaneSketch"). To use that sketch line, you need to do something like qCreatedBy(id + "angledPlaneSketch", EntityType.EDGE); As its the only line in the sketch, quering for all edges made by the sketch should produce only that edge.
Or you can do sketchEntityQuery(id + "angledPlaneSketch", EntityType.EDGE, "angledPlaneLine"); if you were to have multiple sketch lines.
All you would need to do is calculate the normal direction of your plane (and the origin), which will be a lot less work.
qCreatedBy is failing because the Id is that of a sketch entity, but that query type takes in the feature id ("angledPlaneSketch"). To use that sketch line, you need to do something like qCreatedBy(id + "angledPlaneSketch", EntityType.EDGE); As its the only line in the sketch, quering for all edges made by the sketch should produce only that edge.
Or you can do sketchEntityQuery(id + "angledPlaneSketch", EntityType.EDGE, "angledPlaneLine"); if you were to have multiple sketch lines.
Re: Improvements to Onshape - August 12th, 2024
We had a lot of internal debate about the One True Name for this feature. :P I'm curious what you'd name it?john_allen289 said:I hope this message gets across loud and clear as the name 'Exclude from properties' does not tell the whole story of this improvement for Configurations.
_anton
2
Re: Improvements to Onshape - August 12th, 2024
Finally! I have been waiting for "Exclude from properties" for years! Thank you!
Re: Improvements to Onshape - August 12th, 2024
Just did some more testing and found an issue...
I released a test assembly with a part with an "excluded" config variable:
The good news is that this shows it's technically possible to "add" new permutations after the fact already, all we need is the UI to allow it! i.e. allow "change configuration" in the context menu for released parts with excluded properties and show the excluded config inputs in the list when instances are selected through "Configure assembly features".
I released a test assembly with a part with an "excluded" config variable:
- I had two parts with different values of the excluded config variable
- I was able to release them as one part number/item as expected
- However if I want to insert a new instance of the released part I can only pick the default with no option to change the "excluded" value
And I can't change the config of the ones already in the assembly.
Basically the release only "creates" the permutations of configurations that were explicitly in the release but only the default is "accessible" after that.
We need to be able to change any of the "excluded" properties of a released part after the fact (since we've decided they are all the same part number anyway)...
I think this might also resolve the questions about sub-assembly behavior?
EDIT:
I found a workaround of sorts: insert the part with the excluded property from the workspace (or version should work as well presumably) and set the config to what you want. You can then "change to version" and pick the released version and you end it adds one count to the BOM row for that part.
See example: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/d2d3382aa18189471db96624/w/bfdb4819bc7e743e462a92ad/e/6f9f5e6d135f553ea7e3a3df?configuration=default&bomType=flattened&renderMode=0&tangentEdgeStyle=1&rightPanel=BOMPanel&uiState=66bbadc0de9c134b5f7663bd
- I was able to release them as one part number/item as expected
- However if I want to insert a new instance of the released part I can only pick the default with no option to change the "excluded" value
And I can't change the config of the ones already in the assembly.
Basically the release only "creates" the permutations of configurations that were explicitly in the release but only the default is "accessible" after that.
We need to be able to change any of the "excluded" properties of a released part after the fact (since we've decided they are all the same part number anyway)...
I think this might also resolve the questions about sub-assembly behavior?
EDIT:
I found a workaround of sorts: insert the part with the excluded property from the workspace (or version should work as well presumably) and set the config to what you want. You can then "change to version" and pick the released version and you end it adds one count to the BOM row for that part.
See example: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/d2d3382aa18189471db96624/w/bfdb4819bc7e743e462a92ad/e/6f9f5e6d135f553ea7e3a3df?configuration=default&bomType=flattened&renderMode=0&tangentEdgeStyle=1&rightPanel=BOMPanel&uiState=66bbadc0de9c134b5f7663bd
The good news is that this shows it's technically possible to "add" new permutations after the fact already, all we need is the UI to allow it! i.e. allow "change configuration" in the context menu for released parts with excluded properties and show the excluded config inputs in the list when instances are selected through "Configure assembly features".