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: How to print a drawing at a 1:1 scale if the drawing is much larger than a regular sheet of paper?
Yes, this is done in the PDF viewer software as mentioned above, not in Onshape.
Me personally, having done this a few times out of necessity, I'd strongly recommend going to a print shop that has a large format printer. For a black and white drawing it's often just $5 or $10 to print a large copy. Cutting and taping 9 sheets of paper together is a HUGE hassle, and not worth the money saved, in my personal experience.
Me personally, having done this a few times out of necessity, I'd strongly recommend going to a print shop that has a large format printer. For a black and white drawing it's often just $5 or $10 to print a large copy. Cutting and taping 9 sheets of paper together is a HUGE hassle, and not worth the money saved, in my personal experience.
Re: How to achieve a Sheet Metal bend with interior unbent tab?
Here is a quick and way to achieve this with little effort.
1) use the finish sheet metal command
2) boolean the 2 pieces together
3) convert the part with sheet metal tool/ thicken with tangent propagation selected and select your bends do show angle and bend lines
4) delete original part
Side note: Onshape keeps the original flat but your new flat should be under sheet metal too,
Hope this helps
Re: How to achieve a Sheet Metal bend with interior unbent tab?
You can do it without finishing the sheet metal part.
- Generate the base part, but without that cutout section
- Use boolean to remove the cutout section in bent form (make sure you cut all the way back to the flat face section)
- Use tab to generate that tab
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/198dba6be834e9b022244790/w/e7ce761895817e7dd6d2f828/e/985c837d49715f21ad3aa0d0
(Its not perfect but you get the idea)
- Generate the base part, but without that cutout section
- Use boolean to remove the cutout section in bent form (make sure you cut all the way back to the flat face section)
- Use tab to generate that tab
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/198dba6be834e9b022244790/w/e7ce761895817e7dd6d2f828/e/985c837d49715f21ad3aa0d0
(Its not perfect but you get the idea)
Re: How do I create embossed (extruded) text onto a compound curved surface?
Hi, take a look at this document, maybe it will help you. Otherwise, it would be great if you could share a document.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/9dfb6fa76228e8a62707bd39/w/117924f8c1d1ea5ed48fb075/e/ecefe626e9b5144852c8b702?renderMode=0&tangentEdgeStyle=1&uiState=66bb781c6edede5fac6f99ce
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/9dfb6fa76228e8a62707bd39/w/117924f8c1d1ea5ed48fb075/e/ecefe626e9b5144852c8b702?renderMode=0&tangentEdgeStyle=1&uiState=66bb781c6edede5fac6f99ce
Re: Blacklist/Whitelist Configurations?
+1 to that improvement request, I agree this is an improvement that should get made, but I also like a good work around.
Its technically possible with FeatureScript, but the process of defining the blacklist/white listed configurations takes a bit of manual work. (Either requires typing it out, or creating a validation function).
I made a feature that runs through the current configuration, and if it matches something in the blacklist, it deletes all the bodies and shows an error.
This prevents a user from using the part in an un-allowed configuration. It still can be "used" but the part at least won't appear.
Its featurescript, so you have lots of option on what it could look like. Generate a red cube with "NO" inscribed on it, etc.
The neat thing about this is that you don't need to define the entire configuration, just which variable combinations are black listed.
You could also just define logic. Ie, if one variable is bigger than another or if one is a multiple of another, etc.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/583d561ba4858700c3193753/w/193e12ae51a0915a6aa67c8f/e/d4283c2dd00df6ae952bb2c8
I wrote an article last week about using configurations in featurescript if anyone is curious
https://www.smartbenchsoftware.com/post/featurescript-and-configurations
Its technically possible with FeatureScript, but the process of defining the blacklist/white listed configurations takes a bit of manual work. (Either requires typing it out, or creating a validation function).
I made a feature that runs through the current configuration, and if it matches something in the blacklist, it deletes all the bodies and shows an error.
This prevents a user from using the part in an un-allowed configuration. It still can be "used" but the part at least won't appear.
Its featurescript, so you have lots of option on what it could look like. Generate a red cube with "NO" inscribed on it, etc.
The neat thing about this is that you don't need to define the entire configuration, just which variable combinations are black listed.
You could also just define logic. Ie, if one variable is bigger than another or if one is a multiple of another, etc.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/583d561ba4858700c3193753/w/193e12ae51a0915a6aa67c8f/e/d4283c2dd00df6ae952bb2c8
I wrote an article last week about using configurations in featurescript if anyone is curious
https://www.smartbenchsoftware.com/post/featurescript-and-configurations
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?
