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: Render Studio Galvanized Steel Sheet
Yeah the built-in "Zinc Galvanized" is only good a representing a hot dipped part but galvanized sheets are way shinier.
Using the flake noise pattern for the roughness looks great (I'll have to remember this)!
Re: Rethinking SolidWorks
I think you should ask the sales rep you already talked to, to refer you to the right person.

Re: Sheet metal performance best practices
I guess one of the most important factors in wanting them in one part studio is because of all the connecting rivet/fastener holes?
In case of each part its own studio, you'd have to have one part leading the hole positions, and then create a context for each other part to create the accompanying holes in the other parts. Not ideal either.
I've yet to find the ideal way of working for sheet metal assemblies as wel, so just joining the thread
That was the only thing I sometimes mis Autodesk Inventor for: bolted connections created a chain of fasteners and the proper holes in all parts all from the assembly interface.
This would be awesome in Onshape as well! anybody aware of an improvement request for such a solution?
Re: CAM for sheet goods/routers, what do you want?
I know it's been a WHILE, but we are taking another at the possibility of bringing Fabber to Onshape.
We had done some preliminary work on it several years ago, and for a variety of reasons we had to go in a different direction.
There's a small chance we might resume development on Fabber in Onshape again… I am curious what the interest level would be if we did?
Re: Improvements to Onshape - December 13th, 2024
@bryan_lagrange Maybe it was all a misunderstanding:
Re: Trouble with loft not lofting
if you check "connections" you'll see more of what it's trying to do. (and how that's not going to make proper geometry.)
you can even match connections and get it working (I doupt whether this what you're trying to achieve):
but it would be better to keep you outline as simple and clean as possible, and add details further down the model like this (see V2)
(I have no idea what shape you're trying to achieve, I'm just guessing here).
New Custom Feature: Slot
I'm sure there are plenty of slot custom features out there. Well, here's another one. Creates straight or arc slots with counterbores, chamfers and works with sheet metal.
Re: Improvements to Onshape - December 13th, 2024
Really nice update! 2024 was a great year and I'm also looking forward to 2025😀
Happy Holidays to PTC and Onshape🎄🌟🎁
But I can't shake the feeling that something has been forgotten:
Re: Improvements to Onshape - December 13th, 2024
Enjoy the holidays, PTC and Onshape! so ready for the 2025 launch! 🎉
[Chatbot Copilot] - We Built a FeatureScript AI Assistant That Outperforms ChatGPT
Hey everyone,
I’m a mechanical engineer, and I’ve been working with FeatureScript at my company for about a year now. Honestly, it’s been tough. Tools like ChatGPT suck at FeatureScript, which is frustrating when you know how useful they are for more familiar languages like JavaScript or Python. Unless you're a FeatureScript expert, I think we can all agree that productivity takes a big hit compared to more common languages because there’s no good LLM-powered copilot to help out.
So, we fixed that ! We built our own AI assistant, specifically for FeatureScript !
It’s not perfect, but it’s way better than ChatGPT in this area. This isn’t just a basic GPT model with the Onshape Standard Library as input—two of our machine learning engineers spent six months building it. They used a technique based on a paper called “Large language model multi-agent collaborations”. I’m no, expert but basically, they created a system with reasoning steps, multiple agents working together to analyze questions, generate code, cross-check the documentation, test, and iterate until the output works. It uses RAG, agent-based reasoning, and multiple LLM calls to get the job done. Internally, it’s been a game-changer for how we work with FeatureScript. And while this tool clearly doesn't make us better than a featurescript expert, it does make us infinitely more productive.
Don’t get me wrong, if we had 10 million dollars to label tons of FeatureScript data and fine-tune a big model, that would be even better. But for now, this approach is giving us a really good productivity boost, and we’re pretty excited about it.
Now we’re wondering if we should share this with the outside world. There are a couple of big questions:
- Would people pay for it? Let’s be real: running all these models and doing this whole chain-of-thought process isn’t cheap. Plus, they put so much work into this. They’d have to charge a monthly fee. For professional work, it’s a no-brainer—just a small productivity boost pays for itself almost immediately. But do you feel the same way?
- Is there enough interest out there? Are we looking at a niche tool that only a handful of people would find useful, or is there a real market for something like this?
I’d love to hear what you think. Would a specialized FeatureScript assistant be worth the cost to you or your company? Are we barking up the wrong tree, or does this seem like something that could fill a real need?
Thanks for any thoughts you can share !