Is it possible to associate a specific "Display States" or "Named Positions" to an assembly config?

StephenG

I was hoping the new "Assembly Configuration" capability would have the ability to reference a specific Display State, or Named Position, but it does not appear to be possible at this time.
 

NeilCooke

No, this is intentional. We did not want to tie these things together. If you have a specific use case, please create an IR -->

NeilCooke

No, this is intentional. We did not want to tie these things together. If you have a specific use case, please create an IR -->

StephenG

My reason for asking is I have a need to create drawings that show specific arbitrary arrangements of parts within an assembly that support (document) the entire life cycle of the design, ex. assembly/disassembly steps, maintenance processes, etc.

It is still not possible to reference a "Named Positions" when creating a drawing view. I was hoping this was possible indirectly through an "Assembly Configuration".

I have attempted to create "Assembly Configurations" with arbitrary positions by creating an assy configuration where all the assy constraints are suppressed. Initially this approach appeared to work; I could switch between various configuration and the create drawing view of them, but at some point Onshape would "undo" the manual arbitrary placement of the assy instances bringing everything back together as though the assy contraints were not surpressed. I lose the arbitrary placement effect in the configuration and associated drawing views.     

    

Cris_Bowers

@StephenG You can configure mate offset distances

StephenG

Yes, the technique shown does produce the desired effect and I would use it if the assemble/disassemble steps required such positioning precision. If magnitude displacement precision is not required, suppressing the constraint and instance dragging should be sufficient.

I have just begun to use the new Assembly Configuration capability and it is becoming clear that its primary focus is to allow the creation of different variations of products (those that share a common product hierarchy) which will have unique product IDs within a single Assembly document tab. It appears Part Configuration use philosophy drove Assembly Configuration functionality. While I understand some people are overjoyed with this capability, I do not have a need for it at this time.

I was hoping Assembly Configuration would include functionality to make it easy to create assembly configurations that support the iterative design process and document important product life cycle states. Maybe the functionality is there and easy to use, but I have not yet discovered it.  

Cris_Bowers

@StephenG Are you able to share an example of what you are trying to do?

StephenG

The functionality needed is so basic to the design and manufacture of an assembly I do not understand why it is not supported in Onshape.   

I am attempting to document the steps necessary to assemble and disassemble an assembly. I was hoping Assembly Configurations would allow the creation of a series (ordered sequence) of configurations where instances are shown in different locations with different Display States. It is currently possible to create configurations with instances in different locations, but the process is incredibly tedious. Named Positions and Display States cannot be linked together and I thought assembly configurations would provide the framework where that would take place; I have been waiting 2 years for this basic functionality and it is still not available.  

I was hoping with Assembly Configurations it would be possible to link an existing Display State and Named Position to an assembly configuration which is very useful for supporting downstream usage of Onshape design data. Creating a drawing documenting the assembly/disassembly process is a real challenge in Onshape; I am convinced this might be intentional to "encourage" users to join the 21st century where creating 2D representations of 3D design data should be abandoned if at all possible.

I would be very interested how others are creating and maintaining manufacturing process documentation that includes graphics of Onshape geometry. 

I wish Onshape would have been more transparent regarding the functionality Assembly Configuration was going to have. I repeatedly asked Onshape to make an exception to their standard "cone of silence" regarding upcoming releases and to give users a heads up as far as Assembly Configurations, but got no response. I guess my expectations bar was set to high; if I would have known what was coming (not coming) I wouldn't have been so disappointed.     

joe_dunne

Stephen,

We do not publicly discuss something that does not exist. You seem to have been using CAD for a long time. I have too have been doing so for a long time. based on this, I have a long memory of an industry that tends to promise things years ahead of time. Basically vaporware. That also resulted in a lot of disappointed and angry users.  Software developers can never guarantee how fast or soon a given project will be ready for production usage. And sometimes things dont work out while in development...I have seen software companies ship things, because of the pressure on promising ahead of time. Things that are not ready, not working well, and probably should never have been shipped.

We do sometimes do work a little closer with our professional paid customers. This is to help refine and make sure we are building the tools they need.  But we have limited resources, and we have to draw the line somewhere. Our professional customers tend to get this type of priority.

Your use case seems very close to what one of our partners is actually solving with Onshape today. Manufacturing sequencing, assy instructions and other similar DMU types of tools. However I am not sure they offer you a free seat of of software, like Onshape. But I am happy to make introductions if you are interested? 

Joe

StephenG

Joe,

There is a difference between "discussing something that does not exist" yet, and vaporware. Shame on companies that allow/encourage employees to tell its customers what they want to hear and over promise functionality that is so far into the future it will never see the light of day. Onshape is certainly not guilty of that unscrupulous behavior. However, the user base sometimes needs a little more information other than "it is currently one of our highest priorities", "we're working on it", "it is coming soon" canned responses. Assembly Configurations was one of those things (an exception) where Onshape should have been more transparent. Of the hundreds of users who submitted Improvement Requests and/or Vote Up'ed forum posts pleading for Assembly Configuration functionality, there is probably an equal # of opposing views on exactly what functionality it should have. Obviously, my understanding of what was needed and how it would work was very out of sync with the decision makers. My plea for more information, so I could better set expectations and plan activities to take advantage of it when became available, were ignored.

As a "free" user I completely understand why none of my thoughts on the issue matter; Onshape should focus on serving the user base that pays the bills, with particular attention and weight given to larger multi-subscription customers. (Of course there are the investors which need to be kept happy as well.) That is the world works and is the way the world should work.       

While the functionality of Assembly Configurations is very impressive, it addresses a usage scenario that is not particularly important to my normal use of Onshape. I doubt I will ever use Assembly Configurations in the way it was intended to be used. Currently, I am trying to see it can get some value from it. So far I successfully used Assembly Configurations to represent two states of an assembly: the "As-Built OEM" design and the "New & Improved" design. Prior to Assembly Configurations I needed to use separate assemblies which required extra effort to maintain consistent product hierarchies.

In my initial post I made the following statement: 

"... its [Assembly Configurations] primary focus is to allow the creation of different variations of products (those that share a common product hierarchy) which will have unique product IDs within a single Assembly document tab..." 

I would appreciate if you would confirm if my above understanding of what Assemblies Configurations usage is for is accurate.

Based on your post I am a little disheartened that Onshape appears to be so heavily focused on the product geometry design aspect that it is willing to offload development of functionality that is considered manufacturing specific. One of Onshape's major selling points is the ease in which it facilitates/supports collaboration across a diverse set of disciplines. Manufacturing needs to play an important role early on and its input should greatly influence the "Concept" design as it becomes the "To-Be-Built" design. Individuals from the manufacture discipline often need to create alternate (in-process) representations of the design to support the development of tooling and processes; this often results in product design changes.

I did a cursory search of the APP Store and did not see a 3D Party vendor listed that is tightly integrated with Onshape databases and provides functionality to facilitate determination of manufacturing related processes along with the creation of required documentation supporting the entire Product Life Cycle.

It should be noted the functions needed to create a manage alternate representations of "To-Be-Built" assemblies are equally valuable to designers doing iterative design. Some basic functionality needs to exist in Onshape to better support this.

StephenG