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.
Comments
Twitter: @onshapetricks & @babart1977
Also, being able to have an "Explode" state like what Creo does is Extremely Useful for drawing purposes. That seems to be another drawback of hanging all the hopes of assemblies on Mate Connectors. I'm not sure how you would create a toggled "explode" feature to an assembly that can be toggled both in a drawing and in an assembly with everything locked by the Mate Connectors. They're really great for some things, but handcuff others.
Now if I could get you folks to create the functionality of Creo's Parameter-driven modeling and menu systems. I'd really be a happy camper.
:-)
It seems that most of what develops here in Onshape is based on what Solidworks has done, and it's not necessarily the most ideal approach. But then, there's not a perfect solution to anything out there in the market place. Not even NX or Creo or some other more expensive options are completely ideal, and they all have their own "language" that users must learn. I guess, I would have assumed that the the Development Team at Onshape had licenses of their competitor's products to look for features that they would see great value in, to be able to develop in similar fashion.
For example:
As mentioned in my original post, Creo has the ability to create what are called "Combined States" in an assembly, which include the ability to show different (in Onshape Language) Configurations, Display States, and exploded states (with the ability to add explode lines), all in named "combined states". These then can be chosen (and modified!) in an assembly drawing with a simple menu toggle in the drawing setup. But it's the Assembly options and states that drive what you get with the drawing. It makes the drawing especially easy to create. You can even click on a simple command to then view all the dimensions that were created while sketching the parts, and then you can choose to hide or show which ones you want in the drawing, or then add more.
You guys really need some folks who have been users of other software than Solidworks and <gag> Autocad on your Development Team!
( hint, hint ! )
While assembly configurations are under development you could try using different workspaces to represent different states of assemblies. If changes to part studios are needed, you can merge them into all the branches. This takes a bit of planning the document structure, but is quite doable.
I would like to think that most of the down votes were related to the negative tone of the comment, which in retrospect was over-the-top and inappropriate in this Forum Discussion Thread.
I have a presumption (prior CAD experience bias) of Assembly Configuration functionality based own my own immediate needs and how I think the functionality should be implemented. Clearly I am failing to see OS's bigger picture regarding Assembly Configurations. So why is it I cannot see the bigger picture? I have come to the conclusion I do not see the picture because no picture has been made available to look at. Clearly there is a major disconnect between what OS has planned and what I think is needed. My knee jerk negative reaction to Display States was the result of it appearing to be another example of functionality that falls way short of what is needed, for example, one cannot reference display states in drawings.
Based on comments by others, Display State functionality might be a piece of Assembly Configurations puzzle. Currently, this is only conjecture by the user community, but I have a strong feeling this is the case. I wish OS would have been a little more upfront in this update as to how Display States might be leveraged by future functionality. This would change the focus from a feature that falls short, to it being a positive step towards something greater... Assembly Configurations?
My conjecture is Part Configurations philosophy and UI is the primary influencer for Assembly Configurations functionality. I am concerned that too much of Part Configurations is being implemented in Assembly Configurations which has impeded its availability. I view Part and Assembly configurations as completely different problem domains requiring different solutions. Part Configurations was something a user can use or ignore, whereas, assembly configurations should be integral to a basic assembly definition.
Assembly Configurations is something that will have a profound impact on (radically change) the way OS assemblies will be created and used. From a product definition standpoint assembly configurations will be the single greatest upgrade to the product since its initial release. Therefore, I am baffled why OS chooses to keep the user community in the dark until they are ready to unveil it in its full glory.
A little more transparency by OS relative to what functionality improvements are stacked in the pipeline, how they will work, and when to expect them would go a long way towards establishing realistic expectations by users.