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.
Importing an .swb file from a supplier.
christopher_owens
Member Posts: 235 ✭✭
Hello! I have attempted to import a file for a DE-STA-CO clamp created from their website's product page. I first tried importing the ZIP file (created using "SolidWorks, >=2001+" choice on their site), and received "Translation failed" messages in Onshape. I did this both on the Documents Page and in a Parts Studio. Then I uncompressed the ZIP file on my local computer and there was a text document file and a .SWB file for the clamp. I attempted to Import the .SWB file and all I get is a tab with the file listed. Anyone want to figure out how to get the clamp model to regenerate??? This goes along with 'Similar Parts' or working with supplier's models.
Tagged:
0
Best Answers
-
dennis_20 Member Posts: 87 EDU@christopher_owens, Every file import of an assembly in a non-native format will only bring in the parts and will not bring in the mates/constraints. This is true between SolidWorks/PTC/Inventor, etc. None of them can truly read the others' files and do more than bring in dumb solids (no mates). At best the parts will come in in the same relative position they were in from their originating software (as you were able to do with some trial and error) and you can then add the appropriate mates yourself.
Until one software can truly read the information of another software this will be the case. The best suppliers will make their solid files available in a choice of software that will save their components/assemblies in a format you can directly use without having to add constraints. SolidWorks and Pro\Eh are two of the most popular. OnShape is still in Beta. I would not expect companies to offer their products in a native OnShape format until sometime well after it becomes a full production software package. In the meantime you'll be doing what you've just done, but you'll discover what is the most expeditious procedure for you.
5 -
dennis_20 Member Posts: 87 EDU@andrew_troup,
... It must be burdensome for them to rewrite or reconfigure their websites with every annual update, for every legacy MCAD package they support.
This isn't really necessary. Once a company has their files setup for a given software they do not have to update it for more recent versions as their older format files are still readable by the newer versions. Some companies I've seen make their files available in (among other formats) SolidWorks 2001, but my current SWX2015 reads them just fine.
Besides that, in most cases we are looking for a good representation of the vendor's product and not their infinitely detailed production files, so even a dumb solid will do. We just want to be able to find it easily and get it into our system for reference use.
With all due respect, the vendors that make their files available in various 3D formats will continue to do so until those particular packages die. I don't see OnShape or any other 3D package for that matter becoming a de facto format. IGES was supposed to be just that, a de facto 3D format standard, but it never did.
5
Answers
UX/PD/Community Support
Until one software can truly read the information of another software this will be the case. The best suppliers will make their solid files available in a choice of software that will save their components/assemblies in a format you can directly use without having to add constraints. SolidWorks and Pro\Eh are two of the most popular. OnShape is still in Beta. I would not expect companies to offer their products in a native OnShape format until sometime well after it becomes a full production software package. In the meantime you'll be doing what you've just done, but you'll discover what is the most expeditious procedure for you.
I say this because it combines freedom from cost and complexity, with universal platform capability and versatile output formats.
Companies who wanted to, could simplify their offering by having only that single output format. It must be burdensome for them to rewrite or reconfigure their websites with every annual update, for every legacy MCAD package they support.
This isn't really necessary. Once a company has their files setup for a given software they do not have to update it for more recent versions as their older format files are still readable by the newer versions. Some companies I've seen make their files available in (among other formats) SolidWorks 2001, but my current SWX2015 reads them just fine.
Besides that, in most cases we are looking for a good representation of the vendor's product and not their infinitely detailed production files, so even a dumb solid will do. We just want to be able to find it easily and get it into our system for reference use.
With all due respect, the vendors that make their files available in various 3D formats will continue to do so until those particular packages die. I don't see OnShape or any other 3D package for that matter becoming a de facto format. IGES was supposed to be just that, a de facto 3D format standard, but it never did.
@dennis_20 is correct about non-native file types being unable to contain mates, just relative position. With that in mind, how would you expect the parts to be structured in Onshape after you imported them?
UX/PD/Community Support
Because of their unusually responsive decision-making structures, Onshape listened to the users and quickly reversed this decision, so that dxf output is now in a very early version, which is far preferable, for the reasons you state.
But most companies are stuck in a broken paradigm, whereby their commercial needs are met by forcing users to keep the upgrade treadmill grinding. Furthermore, most companies would not be happy to tarnish their reputation with a website providing "ancient" output formats, such as Solidworks from last century (= last millenium!), or parasolid version numbers in single figures.
Vendor companies also have to cope with the continual emergence of new formats, as new MCAD packages have their turn in the sun. And the fine detail of their file formats is not typically open source, so it is a major undertaking in reverse engineering to provide truly robust models in a useful variety of formats.
Hence my proposition: that if Onshape becomes a multi-platform package, freely available and easily able to provide translation to most useful (rather than "latest greatest") file formats, hardware vendors could, (if smart enough) choose to make things a lot easier for themselves by providing models in a single format, and their clients would have a single viable and reliable workflow to translate those models into something usable by them all.
I don't pretend this will necessarily happen, and of course it won't happen across the board. Nevertheless it would make a lot of sense, in instances where vendors chose that course of action.
But first, Onshape will have to succeed.