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 do i export models at the correct size
Are you exporting as stl? If so, stl does not track units, and your slicer probably thinks it’s in mm. You can scale the parts in the slicer by 25.4. That converts in to mm.
Another option is to export as step. Step format does keep track of units. Not all slicers accept step, however. I’d try this first and if it works, always use step going forward.
Re: Any tips for performance / rebuild improvement?
You could try the CNC Overcuts feature. I used to have a crazy 4 step process in Solidworks to make this kind of geometry and now it's just a matter of selecting the parts you want overcut and letting the feature do the work. I made a custom version of it to patch in support for sheet metal parts as well as letting the tool skip past parts that don't require overcutting since the original tool will just fail if it doesn't find any corners to munch material from. Word of warning though if you've got heavy geometry in a studio before applying the corner treatment with this tool, no method of generating these corners is going to be lightweight - especially if you actually are defining your parts as sheet metal before using it. Any sheet metal operation is going to be 2-10x more computationally expensive than their non-sheet metal cousins. Your most likely solution to most performance issues is break parts out into more studios and try not to do as much in any single one.
How to check if edges from different bodies or sketches are geometrically identical?
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to figure out if there's a reliable way to determine whether two edges from different entities (such as a sketch and a solid body) are geometrically identical using featurescript— meaning same shape, size, and position.
Let's say I have a square sketch and I extrude it to create a cube. Now, I want to check — for each of the four edges in the sketch, which edge(s) in the resulting solid body are geometrically matching (i.e., coincident and identical in size and shape).
I understand that qMatching() can find identical geometry within the same owner body, but as far as I know, it doesn’t work across different parts or between sketches and solids.
Is there any built-in method or workaround (like using evaluators or geometric comparisons) that could help detect this kind of edge matching across different entities?
If anyone has tackled this kind of problem — or has suggestions for comparing edge geometry (type, endpoints, radius, etc.) — I’d greatly appreciate your input!
Thanks in advance!
Re: New API limits = 85 requests per day per company
I am very aware of the limits, and I can't speak for any decisions made by PTC.
But I as a developer and consultant, I've worked with a wide variety of APIs, all with their own quirks and limits. Not every API is comparable. Some API calls have a ton of compute behind them ( evalFeaturescript…exports…anything that forces regen).
If you've ever built anything in the cloud, storage is cheap - compute is expensive. See how many minutes of build/actions github includes in a plan (its not a lot, I hit the limit every month). My azure costs are like 99% compute and 1% database usage.
There have always been limits on the Onshape API, just different ones to the current ones. But yes, these new limits are going to be a bit more difficult to work with. Its forcing me to audit every solution, and be a lot more careful about every single api call that I make. Looking through my client base, most solutions are not affected by these API limits, only a minority are going over that yearly limit. There isn't actually a limit to the number of API calls you can make….theres just a cost associated with them now.
Re: Standard Content - Edit Appearance
Re: Standard Content - Edit Appearance
Having the appearance and also vendor be company defined parameters would make standard content useful for our group too.
Re: Standard Content - Edit Appearance
Would I be able to make a similar request?Jason_S said:@David_Harris_420 ,
You cannot change the color of standard content at this time. They are versioned parts and we do not have a mechanism for you to change colors of versioned parts. We could, in the future, include it as a company defined property much like standard content part number and description.
Not everyone wants content to be the color it exists as in real life. Some companies want different sizes or types of fasteners to be different colors to easily identify them on an assembly.
We will be adding you to an improvement request.
Thank you,
Janik
Janik
