Why is it not possible to "Derive" a part from "Standard content"?

StephenG

Is this an oversight, or is there a good reason why data in the library from "Standard content" cannot be derived into a Part Studio?

Note: When a part is imported from an external supplier via an Onshape App its geometry can be modified and it can be derived. 

mahir

Agreed. It would be nice if there was a Save Copy feature for standard parts, or something to that effect. In the meantime, there is a workaround. Put the hardware you want to modify into an assembly. Export that assembly - preferably as a parasolid. Then import that same parasolid into a part studio. Now you have the part and can modify it as needed.

mahir

Agreed. It would be nice if there was a Save Copy feature for standard parts, or something to that effect. In the meantime, there is a workaround. Put the hardware you want to modify into an assembly. Export that assembly - preferably as a parasolid. Then import that same parasolid into a part studio. Now you have the part and can modify it as needed.

StephenG

Thanks for the instructional tip.

owen_sparks

Also agreed.

Alternative method:-

Add to assembly, in context edit, copy in place.

Owen S.

PeteYodis

Can I ask what need you have that you want to copy standard content?  Is it for different lengths of fasteners?  

mahir

@owen_sparks, maybe I'm an old SW curmudgeon, but I try to avoid in context relationships unless absolutely necessary. Plus, for something like making a copy, using an in-context copy-in-place has the downside of requiring you to first create and place a part into an assembly. The copy-in-place then adds another part to that part studio. If what you want is to modify a screw, that seems kind of messy.

owen_sparks

@mahir agreed, you'll also lose any metadata as the copied part is a brand new part. 😐

@pete_yodis for me standard content is part of the design process. Dimensions of bespoke parts need to take into consideration what standard content is available.

So for thread engagement will my bolt engage half a thread, stick out the back of the part and foul something else, or will it be just right?

"Do I stock this standard content?" is another consideration.

Standard content in the assembly is for me too late in the design process.

With this in mind I'm building a company standard content FS. It's nothing more than a "curated derive to here" but allows us to design around what we think of standard content, fixings, electrical connectors, housings, magnets etc.

Cheers, Owen S.

PeteYodis

@owen_sparks So you would prefer to see the content in context of the design in the part studio... Is that correct?

Regarding standard content today, do you use the part number capability for your own needs?  And along those lines, do you prefer to see all of your part numbered content bubble up to take priority over new content you may configure?  

StephenG

@pete_yodis

Regarding what I was trying to accomplish...

I wanted to create a variant of a #8-32 truss head screw so it could be inserted through a narrow rectangular slot, rotated 90 degrees to grip the underside of the slot.


I shortened the length to reflect what had to be done to the 1" long screws I had on hand. I do a lot of cobble engineering-make due manufacturing. I model the As-Is condition of something that is broken, needs improvement, or is an off the shelf part that need to be modified to suit my needs. I use Onshape to help me think through/document the process I need to perform; I am not your typical user and use Onshape in non traditional ways.

Regarding Standard Content...

Standard Content is nothing more than a 3D cartoon (Clipart) that is used  to communicate a general concept for using an off the shelf, 3rd party provided product. The precise determination of what item is needed to fully meet the requirements of the product being designed and from whom, is something that usually comes later. The ability to assign a part number to an instance of a Standard Content component is something I would never use. For it to be useful it would have to have many more additional fields to capture vendor source information that would propagate into the BOM.

I believe it makes sense for a company to create their own "Standard Content" parts libraries of approved parts, from approved vendors, and have a well defined process in place to manage the library. Different disciplines, especially procurement, needs to have its hands in the process. How about Onshape provide the tools to facilitate that process. 

I use Standard Content, but I find it cumbersome to use.

1) The process is slow. It is as though Part Configurations are being used to dynamically build the 3D geometry representation on the fly every time data is pulled from Standard Content.
2) All the inputs field are fixed lists. If the parts are being built dynamically, some fields should allow a range of user input values.
3) Selecting the desired screw head type is difficult. Why aren't industry standard names used along with Type 1, 1A, etc. The 2D graphic representing what will be inserted is not accurate.          

owen_sparks

Hi @pete_yodis

PeteYodis said:

@owen_sparks So you would prefer to see the content in context of the design in the part studio... Is that correct?

That would help, but isn't quite what I'm after. ICE feels like a bit of a workaround. If we park that for a moment then quote a Philipism:- "Partstudios are for designing parts, assemblies are for motion and instancing." 

Standard content is a consideration / constraint when designing so should be available in the PS, long before we even think of building an assembly.

If we agree on that statement then my preference would be "PS Standard Content" appears ghosted, so in appearance it's similar to an ICE representation. Should we then drop these PS parts into an assembly they're converted to "real looking" parts, with proper instancing so BOM's work correctly.  

PeteYodis said:

Regarding standard content today, do you use the part number capability for your own needs?  And along those lines, do you prefer to see all of your part numbered content bubble up to take priority over new content you may configure?  

Use Q? should be but haven's set our in hose PB for more than a couple of parts.

Bubble Q? I'd be delighted with just a check-box stating something like "Show only parts with PN set" or "Show only Company Approved Content".  Workflow would be to show all, add PN's to what we have in stores, then pick of the approved list next time around.

Hope that provides some background?

Owen S.

PeteYodis

@owen_sparks, I'm not really getting at ICE  - but more of what you conveyed in your response.  Designing parts with fasteners and other standard content is always a team game for sure - so it would be nice to see a representation of it sooner rather than later.  

 And yes, an easier way to filter for your parts and not things that have not been used yet by your organization seems like a reasonable request and one we have heard and know we need to provide.  

Thanks very much for the feedback.  

owen_sparks

@pete_yodis Sure thing, thanks for listening

Cheers, Owen S.

Emily_Batchelor

PeteYodis said:

@owen_sparks, I'm not really getting at ICE  - but more of what you conveyed in your response.  Designing parts with fasteners and other standard content is always a team game for sure - so it would be nice to see a representation of it sooner rather than later.  

 And yes, an easier way to filter for your parts and not things that have not been used yet by your organization seems like a reasonable request and one we have heard and know we need to provide.  

Thanks very much for the feedback.  

Just wondering if anything along these lines has been implemented, in terms of filtering parts by ones already used? We seem to be using an endless amount of fasteners, so it would be great for the design team to have a clear indication of whether a fastener is already used elsewhere and avoid using a "new" one. 

rick_randall

Hello @PeteYodis ,  standard content works fine for the limited content that is there, but I had problems with screws not having enough length options. I would love to be able to edit the content to meet my needs - but alas , no can do. I assume this has to do with BOM data not updating properly.

If standard content has to be this way, fine -  but you need to add a lot more content (because we can't). I know you guys are busy, but please don't forget about us.

  P.S. would also like to see AN/MS content in the "standard content"- or better yet, a custom library button that works like "standard content"  (i.e. custom frame profiles) where I put my own content into. Sorry, I don't want this to sound like a rant, but some improvement is needed.

Thanks

nc14

StephenG said:

The ability to assign a part number to an instance of a Standard Content component is something I would never use. For it to be useful it would have to have many more additional fields to capture vendor source information that would propagate into the BOM.

 @PeteYodis I agree with Stephen here. The ability to assign custom properties to standard content within a document would be extremely helpful. 

As an example, I'm working on a project for a client and have used standard content fasteners all over the place. The CM that my client is working with has assigned their own part numbers to these fasteners. AND the client uses their own internal part number. In order to avoid confusion when providing a BOM to the client and the CM, it would be helpful to add this metadata to the standard content that I've used. BUT, I don't want this metadata applied across the board for my entire firm. What if we use the same standard fastener (likely) on a different project with a different client and CM? Then the standard content metadata is in conflict.

S1mon

Standard content has a lot of great benefits, but without more options with metadata, its use can be limiting.

@nc14 At a previous company where we had many clients and many projects, we created new parts for hardware for each project because of all the little details that we needed to tweak. In theory, one should be able to standardize on simple things like certain screws, but because each project and each client needed tweaks to fasteners like plating changes or adding thread locker, it was just safer and easier to have discrete parts for each project. Also in theory, one should have new part numbers when form/fit/function change, but at certain points in the development, having to swap out a bunch of fastener models because the plating changed would have been really annoying. This was also with Solidworks. 

Caden_Armstrong

It is technically possible to derive a standard content part.
They are just public documents that are not available in the normal search context.
I made a quick featurescript to show its possible. The problem is that its a bit of a pain to setup for even just one part, you need to run a few API commands to get the information required.

If you are desperate for a work around, put the standard content into an assembly, create an in context part studio, and then linear pattern the part into a part studio.