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
Possibility to use display states at assembly level
Would it possible to use the display states of an assembly not only for drawing views but also at the assembly level. I often need to insert assembly of machine layout in a bigger building assembly and each time I have to hide everything I don't need from this sub-assembly. Why is it not possible to do so when it is for drawing views. Something similar as SolidWorks way of doing it would be great.
FEATURE REQUEST: Itemised Composite Parts in Assembly BOMs
Hello!
In my design process I'm making mechanical parts with a reasonably complex mechanism tying them together. When I'm developing, I like to add composite parts of all the groups of parts which are static relative to each other; these function as sub-assemblies for me. This approach lets me check the mechanism is working as intended and that there are no clashes etc, with the assembly updating dynamically as I make tweaks. This works great, but when I come to making a proper BOM for manufacturing, I can't see the items that make up each composite part, which is a deal breaker for this approach.
So I need to make a 'proper' assembly with individual parts before release for manufacture, and then either labouriously mate parts together, or use the group mate at input. The former is slow, and breaks when you change mate connector geometry (chamfers etc,) and the latter breaks when geometry in the part studio slightly changes. The only alternative I've seen is to import the part studio as rigid - but this only works when nothing within the part studio is moving relative to anything else. I want to model my parts together in the same part studio to keep component references and the feature tree clean.
So! Either I'd like to be able to selectively add components as rigid 'groups' which dynamically update with the part studio, or I'd like to be able to choose to itemise a composite part for a BOM. The latter I think would be most useful, as it's easier to add components to a composite part from the part studio, and you can do fun things with composites using custom features/featurescripts. It could be as simple as a checkbox in the composite part that determines whether it's itemised in the BOM or not, much like the open/closed option.
This would be way better than using group mates I think - would be great to see it happen!
New Video: Wood Rack Tour 🪵🪓
I recently designed and built a wood rack for my firewood, and made a video touring through the Onshape side of it. I think there are probably some workflow tricks that will help some people, and I fully expect to learn some things in comments too since I haven't used the Frame feature set on many of my professional projects. If you watch and enjoy it I really would appreciate doing the classic like/sub/comment on Youtube which will help boost the young channel.
Re: Large tile layout challenge
Interesting. Seems like using Add with the part pattern requires that the parts all intersect. Natively the tiles don't but I could add a "grout" substrate part and use that to merge them all into one part. That might help with the perf I'm seeing now. As it is, the full render takes about 6s according to the perf tools. It seems to want to render frequently… In any event, I think we have what we need to get this job done. I'll play around with it a bit more in my "spare time" (hah!) to simplify and improve perf.
As an aside, re the dilemmas of tool choice, level of control/detail is critical. I have the same building model in Chief Architect (for example) and while I may be able to do a basic tile layout, I doubt very much I could experiment with the detail required for the 45deg transition as shown here (ignore the little spike on the corner tile). With Onshape I was able to setup multiple configurations for different approaches to the corner transition, as well as offsets to shift the whole pattern along the 22.5deg corner midline to left/right/center justify the tile pattern in the hallway and see how that affects doorways etc 50ft away.
With this setup, we can, in real time (ignoring the render delays), adjust during a design discussion to see what works best. FWIW, slate | iteration 4 has the full floor/tile plan. (some configurations are broken as we started ignoring ones we didn't like and made random breaking changes to the surrounding parts).
Anyway, thanks again all. The community makes platforms like Onshape awesome.
Re: AS/NZS Structural Steel Onshape Material Library
Hi @Oliver_Couch I'm very new to analysis in OnShape and this is the first post I've ever read. So just wanted to say thanks for your efforts here - amazing and so useful. I'm really appreciative.
Cheers,
Carl.
Re: Large tile layout challenge
@jeff_mcaffer the part pattern allows joining/adding operation so you don’t have to do any Boolean and select a bunch of parts. This image is a random part that was 2 way patterned. In one feature and the part list never grew to more than 1. Not sure why there appears to be edges in the middle of it. But it serves as an example nonetheless of how I pictured your tile layout working.
Kudos to you for exploring and expanding your skill set with varied types of project. I love that.
MDesign
Re: Large tile layout challenge
In the case of the linear sketch pattern… I might suggest eliminating the gap between tiles since your just looking for problem places. This will reduce your sketch entity count by almost half. which might help.
An alternative idea might be to develop the base repeating pattern as one 'part' with extrudes that go "almost" through the the pattern to create the gaps. this will keep it as one part and then pattern that pattern as you need.
clear as mud? lol.
if theres a specific need to be able to see through the grout, I'd have to spend more time thinking on it.
MDesign
Re: Large tile layout challenge
Building on what @MDesign said, make a part which is the Asher pattern with some thin cuts which aren't all the way through for the grout. Then pattern that part. Patterning the composite parts is probably more overhead than necessary. Patterning a larger part is probably less challenging for the system.
It looks like @wayne_sauder managed to make it work for one part of the floor plan. Seems like his approach also would work.
S1mon
Re: Render Battle #6 - Coffee time ☕(Winner gets a real Prize!)
Didn't know Onshape could render videos. 😉
This is pretty cool!
Words are hit or miss =P
Re: BOM Structure - CAD vs Manufacturing
Nath_McC