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: who do I group a set of scketch entities
Re: Working on a semicircle chamfer
@jj_swanepoel …Was a bit tedious with the degree numbers, but otherwise fairly simple. All done with basic Sketches, Extrudes and Circular Patterns.
Take the training OnShape offers in their Learning Center (especially the Learning Pathways)…they even have a curriculum for those how have "other" CAD experience.
https://learn.onshape.com/?hostDomain=cad
Re: who do I group a set of scketch entities
So, the answer here is, "You can't do it." I also need to group a set of sketch entries for similar reasons as the original questions.
The sketch was a copy and paste from another document, but I want to parametrically attach this sketch to a reference of the part I've added it to.
The best I can do is fix all the entries, and use transform to move them. That gets it in the right place but there are no parametic updates when the reference point moves. It gives a constraint error instead. At least I know it's an issue, but then must remember later what it was attached to etc.
I can add 20 dimensions to the sketch to tie all the unconstrained entities together, but that's a pain worse than as justified.
What I want is a group command like in assemblies that lock the items to a group relative to each other but leaves the group still unconstrained. Then that group can be transformed to the correct location, and then hopefully move as the reference point moves.
Am I correct that this sort of sketch entity group feature just doesn't exist?
Re: Improvements to Onshape - July 18th, 2025
Wow this is a great update!!
These will certainly be of benefit in my daily work immediately:
Configurations updates, Assembly Interference detections option, Mark up reply, Curve/Surface Eval tool, Enclose identification, Copy Link, and Not revision managed
For naming configuration dimensions I would like to visually see those names displayed near the dimension while editing the sketch. Working in our main profile sketches often times we use a dozen or so configured dimensions, it is difficult to find them in the configuration table. A "jump/go to" option would be cool - click the dimension in the sketch and index to the column in the table.
Re: Improvements to Onshape - July 18th, 2025
Would love to see DXF export drawing units option default to a company setting or an export rule. Even if the default was set to workspace units of length. Always defaulting to meter seems a little awkward when we have the ability to change the workspace units.
Automatic redlines to compare drawing revisions
When you are releasing a new revision of a large drawing package the review process can get difficult and tedious even if only a few things have been updated. If I spent several hours carefully reviewing the initial release of a drawing I should only need to review the things that have been changed when a new release candidate is submitted as far as I can tell there is no way to quickly see what has been changed or updated. I either have to ask the designer and hope he doesn't forget anything (or something changed/updated without his knowledge) or look through everything again as if it was the initial release all over again. Onshape has the functionality to compare different versions for 3D models. I would argue that this functionality is even more critical for drawings. I would guess that is also easier to implement. I am surprised this is not an option.
trevin
Re: Improvements to Onshape - July 18th, 2025
I'm very grateful for the new DXF export options. Sorry to hear tom_watt338 is having issues.
For years, my drawings were exporting 25.4 x too small, which drew some awkward questions from clients. This was despite all units being set to millimetres.
Now, after this improvement my DWGs export at the correct scale. (Very happy!) No feedback from Autocad users yet, but it looks good in the Onshape DWG viewer.
It would be good to take this further and add a custom scale factor. (Similar to Solidworks).
As for configuration tables, drag & drop will save so much time! No more "right-click, move up, right-click, move up, right-click, move up…"
Thanks for the improvements!
Re: Scaling an imported image
I prefer to use the "image" FeatureScript as it provides better control.
I find it tends to be messy to try and add sketch elements in the same sketch as the picture so the fact the image end up in it's own feature isn't a drawback for me.
Re: Improvements to Onshape - July 18th, 2025
@bryan_lagrange Don't think so. If you're talking about drawings (rather than exporting from a part studio) I think it defaults to the units specified in the drawing, but I don't know how to change those. They may be locked into the DWT file of your drawing border. Before export, when you change the settings away from "Use drawing units", it does seem to remember the change for subsequent drawings in the same Onshape document. So you should only need to do it once per OS doc.
My apologies. Onshape doesn't remember the export settings for particular drawings between sessions. Today, the export options were back to the default: "Use drawing units."
But yes, it could be useful to set defaults for this in your company settings or user account preferences.
Re: Holes Around a Spiral
Yes, I need to simulate it, therefore it needs all the holes. It's just a shame how slow this piece is to draw. For the record, I attempted the same in other CAD software, and all of them failed trying it in their respective SheetMetal modules. In Onshape at least I could work around it and find an alternative. Anyway, thanks a lot!