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: The Final and Solve button, do they do the same thing?
No.
- Final button shows the final outcome at the end of the complete feature tree.
- Solve button just solves the currently edited mate condition and those of parts already 'attached'.
Re: sharing data and discussing design securely
Even if a company doesn't have a policy about creating a new account, it's a level of friction that is often a barrier for sharing with many reluctant partners. There are a lot of people out there who will not create a new free account or install a new free app for any random thing.
As far as I can tell, the main reason that Onshape requires an account creation is to possibly sell another seat or seats of Onshape. The last time I shared Onshape files with a customer (who didn't have a paid account) Onshape sales contacted them. It makes some kind of sense, but it also seems obnoxious and desperate.
I would request that Onshape looks very carefully at things like Dropbox or Docusign. Those services work well without account creation, and even if you do create an account the level of nagging and sales BS feels relatively low.

Re: Sketch is not fully defined?
Hard to tell without sharing the document, but my guess would be that one of those lines needs to be constrained as vertical or horizontal. Try grabbing one of the corners and your square probably rotates.
Re: sharing data and discussing design securely
Yes, that's indeed somewhat contradictory, but the world is crazy.
No doubt creating and signing in to an own Onshape account is the best thing to do. But people are reluctant to commit, or their company guidelines require an approval process before whatever accounts may be created. I've been working for such a company myself. Approvals, while aiming to improve security, eventually slow down these things to a level of uselessness that frustrates employees and makes them develop workarounds of their own to circumvent the whole system, just so they can get their job done in time.
That said, we need some low-friction reasonably trustworthy sharing process that does not easily disclose data while nobody gets fired for using it. I think a password protected link sharing would just fit this gap.
Re: Investing in Onshape's Foundation: Focus on Stability and Performance for the Next Two Releases
Hi Shawn,
The 3 week cadence is not a marketing driven cycle at all - if anything, the rapid releases makes it more difficult for our Marketing team to keep up and stay on top of what we're releasing.
The 3 weeks release cadence is more like a clock cycle we operate on. The analog is having a small train scheduled every 5 mins vs. a large train leaving every 6 hours. The overhead required to try and get a large number of passengers (i.e. code changes for features) on board the 6-hour train is way more than what is needed for the 5-min train.
If a feature doesn't make it in release n, no big deal; we have release (n+1) in 3 weeks. But if a feature would miss the 9-week cadence (or 1 year cadence like some other CAD systems), then it gets pushed out a lot longer and the feature is just sitting there, rather than getting used by customers and giving us more rapid feedback.
This gives all the teams working on multiple large projects in parallel an opportunity to catch the next release train much quicker.
This effect is amplified even more for bug fixes - almost all bug fixes are made in the "next release" code branch. A shorter clock cycle of releases means those bug fixes get released a lot sooner and iterated upon. Completely removes the need for intermediate "service packs".
Re: Investing in Onshape's Foundation: Focus on Stability and Performance for the Next Two Releases
@Vajrang_Parvate That was some great insight and a wonderfully visual explanation into the systems development structure. Thanks!
Re: Improvements to Onshape - May 16th, 2025
I really like all the fixes in the changelog. Especially this one:
- Fixed an issue with export to PDF gives incorrect shaded view for transparent parts
Thanks for the good work!
Re: Why does this Ruled Surface fail?
Okay, I looked at it, but am not sure what you're trying to achieve. It appears you might want to recreate a surface you already have. What is the intention? If you want a straight connection between the two swirled curves, a loft might be an option. It will always be tricky with the two curves meeting at such a pointy angle at both ends, though.
Without these pointy ends (cut them off to isolate the issue), your settings would have returned someting like this:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/dcc988a5b1d3a081990eb2f5/w/6f059eebfcf72f73cb8b696a/e/249ee8634c320d44cdb463ee?renderMode=0&uiState=682e02d7baaca1543b37e25d
You could have achived this in full length and with one click by means of the thicken tool. Just delete the inside face later.
Re: Why does this Ruled Surface fail?
Ruled surface is not liking the two "poles" of your original revolved surface. I suspect that it gets confused by the degenerate nature of the surface there.
I trimmed the poles out, and ruled surface works.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/3ab00b53b48995bdbd161116/v/8f86a8b56e8be9a2a956d263/e/779ed4de834f8b4b334c010b
Depending on what you need to do next, you could create some lofts or boundary surfaces to fix the missing pieces.

Re: Sheet medal conversion issues
Conic sheet metal is coming in the next update or two. Technically it's already possible to convert sheet metal cones but isn't currently exposed to users through the normal sheet metal tool. I've got my own custom copy of the sheet metal tool that allows cones but it's less stable because I removed all of the error protection to allow the kernel to accept a conic face as an input. The stability issues and compatibility with other sheet metal tools is probably the reason they haven't made it live yet to the public.