To any Pro users not using Release Management...

brucebartlett

konstantin_shiriazdanov said:

3dcad said:

One issue to solve is how to divide multipart studio into nice part by part view. I think it should have some UI helper where single part is isolated (like in-context edit) and you could use named views to set 'front-view'. 

I think for MBD there would be needed a separate invironmet, not a part studio. But before they add some new representation to the part would be good to be able to find what representations associated to the part already exist - what geometry, drawings, assemblies, simulations, renders, BOMs are describing particular physical object - the part.

A product structure viewer is what we require for this and if done right would also be a good solution to make lastest releases more visible rather than searching through versions to find the latest release and also possibly break parts out of part studios into an isolated viewer, which also down the track could have MBD. @konstantin_shiriazdanov here's an improvement request for this .
 https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/5602/project-structure-representation-view 

owen_sparks

brucebartlett said:

A product structure viewer is what we require for this and if done right would also be a good solution to make lastest releases more visible rather than searching through versions to find the latest release...

This please

OwS

tim_hess427

konstantin_shiriazdanov said:

3dcad said:

One issue to solve is how to divide multipart studio into nice part by part view. I think it should have some UI helper where single part is isolated (like in-context edit) and you could use named views to set 'front-view'. 

I think for MBD there would be needed a separate invironmet, not a part studio. But before they add some new representation to the part would be good to be able to find what representations associated to the part already exist - what geometry, drawings, assemblies, simulations, renders, BOMs are describing particular physical object - the part.

I think I would go the other way with this. MBD information (dimensions, annotations, datums) should be specified in the part studio so that you are creating design intent and geometry in one place. 

I think splitting the MBD functionality from the model defeats the purpose of MBD and muddies the "one source of truth" goal that makes MBD beneficial.

Just my $0.02.

3dcad

@tim_hess427
I agree as if there was another MBD workspace, that's drawings all over again - first finishing the model then start from nothing to make the presentation 

john_mcclary

I think SolidWorks charges extra for MBD so hopefully Onshape doesn't raise their prices if they decide to add this too 

sebastian_glanzner

In Autodesk Inventor MBD is available for everyone without any extra charge. 

samuel_holland

MBD would be fantastic to see. 
I also think Onshape is uniquely suited to do some really cool things with tolerancing. Maybe using parallel processing on the server to generate multiple configurations of an assembly based on different tolerances to ensure fit across multiple parts with different tolerances. It could theoretically help define the tolerances required as well. I believe Solidworks has a clunky version of this running now but needs a lot of hand holding and crashes frequently

romeograham

I am using RM a little differently after participating in Katie's course. Overall I really like how it automatically takes care of some things.

There's a massive performance improvement for Assemblies (or Part Studios) that used objects that are Derived in from the same document (similar to @3dcad). I find that when I have Derived parts, and my Feature List count approaches 200 features or so, things start to crawl...the sketcher, features, everything. I can't always break up my Part Studios to keep features below 200.

However, my main complaint is similar to @john_mcclary (too many emails)...but for me, it's too many entries in the Version Graph. In the Version Graph, Revisions (of individual objects) look similar to Versions (of the entire Document)...and if you follow Katie's reco'd workflow, you regularly create Revisions of objects inside the Document.  Not sure what the solution is, but I actually appreciate the superior search in my Gmail to sort through all my Releases (I have yet to figure out how to use Onshape's search effectively).

A couple of advantages to using Revisions of parts in Assemblies / Drawings: when you Release the Assembly or Drawing - you don't have to re-release the Parts inside it - because those parts have already been released. However - as @3Dcad will appreciate - then you're not using live-updating parts in the assemblies.  Aagh! 

Overall, I'd always rather having multiple versions / revisions where no geometry has changed (but the filename / Version / Revision has) than a single version with unknown geometry changes. In my SolidWorks world - that means more (uniquely-named) files, but reduces the chance that I'll share two files with the same name but different features. (Sorry that's confusing).

I really appreciate RM, with all of its incompleteness and issues, because it is SO MUCH BETTER than trying to manage versions etc of files with SolidWorks and SolidWorks Explorer (I've never used PDMWorks but I hear it's not fun). We need to keep the conversation going with the good folks at Onshape and mold RM to our needs!

3dcad

@romeo_graham392

svenolov_nystrom

When a new drawing release is approved there should also be an automated pdf export with the revision added to the name of the pdf
Downloaded to the workspace . the way to do it manually is way to slow and typing error is not allowed

michael_bromley

@svenolov_nystrom That request has been made and spans two different improvement requests currently:

1. https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/4753/export-parts-with-pn-and-revision-number-included-in-the-file-name#latest
2. https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/6947/batch-export-files#latest

The second has included feedback on including the export process as an integral component to release management.