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: Enum used as a parameter type must be exported?
I agree with Morgan -- adding the export to geometry.fs was the simplest solution, not the best one.
Query about linear pattern of rib in step excercise
When I try to do linear pattern of the rib as done in slide 13 of step exercise, the linear pattern wants to make the pattern of the rib along with the edge of the step instead of just patterning the rib. I guess it's because of merging the rib with the step part. It would be very helpful is someone can help in pointing out my mistake. Thanks a lot in advance!
https://sso.onshape.com/documents/7ab169d7d45ba88bf4e76878/w/6de92cccd6e80e0a7828b417/e/c9c852ebce6d97f71369e384
https://sso.onshape.com/documents/7ab169d7d45ba88bf4e76878/w/6de92cccd6e80e0a7828b417/e/c9c852ebce6d97f71369e384
Sketch Dimensions -- Units and labels
Hi,
I'm a mechanical design engineer and have some feedback on sketch dimensions. In general, these need a lot more options for customization to be up to industry standard (e.g., solidworks or NX).
A few examples I've noticed so far:
I should be able to add labels (or other notation) within a sketch dimension for better communication between team members looking at the sketch.
I couldn't find an option to display dimensions in other units. If a component interface is in a different unit, I should be able to display it as such in the sketch instead of a random decimal.
I should be able to change diameter to radius and vice versa.
While these aren't necessary for design, these kinds of things are important for communication and design documentation. If someone needs to revise parts years down the road, it's helpful to convey design intent. Anyway, I hope this is helpful.
How to use Move boundary in FeatureScript - opMoveBoundary()
I was having trouble finding how to use the Move boundary within FeatureScript. There is no OpMoveBoundary or OpExtend like you would expect. Here is how you can do it:
Import the extend FS from Onshapes STD at the start of your project.
Next, define the definition for the extend surface and call the function:
Import the extend FS from Onshapes STD at the start of your project.
// For move boundary import(path : "12312312345abcabcabcdeff/6509fdce3abecacec8f38b8a/cffdc47ca3931d4c4d41ee51", version : "0e66a19d0a986e71c5d22df8");
Next, define the definition for the extend surface and call the function:
// Extend ends using move boundary
const extendSurfaceDefinitionLeft = {
"entities" : leftEnd, // Query
"tangentPropagation" : false, // Boolean
"endCondition" : ExtendBoundingType.BLIND, // ExtendBoundingType
"extendDistance" : definition.extensionLeft, // Length
"oppositeDirection" : false, // Boolean
"targetPart" : qNothing(), // Query
"targetFace" : qNothing(), // Query
"targetVertex" : qNothing(), // Query
"maintainCurvature" : false // Boolean
};
extendSurface(context, id + "leftEndExtend", extendSurfaceDefinitionLeft);
Re: Face Mirror vs. Face Pattern Behavior
I often like to extrude as a new part. Add draft/rounds/etc to that part. Then mirror/pattern the part, rather than face or feature. You can add/cut during the mirror/pattern. Its more reliable IMO, and I believe it also takes the least computing resources.
That's one workaround that is good to know for other use cases as well.
That's one workaround that is good to know for other use cases as well.
Re: slider mate usage
Right, I'm with you on the numerical offsets being a bit "dangerous" and hard to find.john_mcclary said:Actually I read yours again, I see you changed the secondary axis.
Yea that would work correctly.
I just cringe when we need to dig into the mate connector and change things with numeric inputs.
Like setting. an offset distance or angle. That kind of stuff is defiantly dangerous in a work setting.
My problem is Onshape does not make in obvious when a mate connector has been modified.
I voted up your IRs anything to help reveal MC states would help.
Right now you have to dig all that way down and mouse over the modified MC before you can tell that it was even tweaked.
Nobody is that clairvoyant.
My answer was in the immediate context of fixing the slider mate above and I believe the "intended" way to do it for Onshape is to realign the MC rather than add a second mate.
I also agree fixing the issue "upstream" would be even better and I would model these two parts in the same PS and solve the problem that way (but that may not be an option if inheriting someone else's model, etc...). Adding an explicit MC in the part would be the next best thing.
Re: Comparison Two Features/Parts/Surfaces in the Same Version
If I understand this correctly, you could just branch of the version and then compare the branched workspace with the initial version.
Re: Onshape Tech Meetup, Bristol, UK - May 16th, 2024
You know Manchester is the place to be!
