Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. 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.

New Video: Learn how to make a Nut

dhenrydhenry Onshape Employees Posts: 85
Hello Onshape Users.

Onshape marketing team member Ethan Rejto has created a great new video on how to make a nut, with a high level of detail.

Check it out by clicking 


  • shanshanshanshan Member Posts: 147 ✭✭✭
    darren_henry,I watched this video, it is very good.But I have a doubt,if we have to creat the surface on which put the helix,if we can define the length and pitch of a helix directly,maybe the surface is not needed,and we also can creat a partial helix in some cylinder face.I think it can simplify  the modeling process.
  • andrew_troupandrew_troup Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You raise an interesting point. I would rather see it resolved slightly differently, though. 

    There is a big advantage attached to NOT specifying the length of a helix numerically: a surface can be defined so it can adapt to future model changes which affect that length. I would hate to see irreplaceable functionality like this sacrificed for the sake of minor convenience.

    It might be better (if you don't want to create a surface) if Onshape were to add an "extend to next face" option for sweeps, so that the extra step is not needed. In the meantime,  those not wishing to create a surface can use "Delete face" to extend the thread through the nut  ... although I realise that it's a bit fiddly picking the face to delete.
  • shanshanshanshan Member Posts: 147 ✭✭✭
    andrew_troup,I agree with you, this is a big advantage!But I cannot understand well about "if Onshape were to add an "extend to next face" option for sweeps" ,could you explain it for me ?thanks very much!
  • andrew_troupandrew_troup Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @shanshan: the idea of this option (which exists in Solidworks, but not yet in Onshape) is to extend the path far enough past its nominal end that there are no extra faces created, and the swept body can be capped cleanly by the end surface of the adjacent body. (In the case of a swept cut, the "body" is the notional, or virtual, tool body which gets subtracted from the adjacent body to perform the cut)
  • shanshanshanshan Member Posts: 147 ✭✭✭
    andrew_troup, maybe it is a good suggestion for onshape, I will try it by solidworks, have not noticed this detail, thanks for sharing!
  • andrew_troupandrew_troup Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2015
    you're welcome. I think the correct name of the option as implemented in SW is actually "Align with end faces" - indicating that it works at both ends of the sweep (when it works, which is not always)

    Naturally, there are some paths which are not able to be automatically extended, and some cases where they can, but the resulting sweep becomes self intersecting or does not terminate cleanly.... so the option does not always work as expected. 

    If Onshape decide to implement a similar option, I reckon it would be a good improvement to design it so that it was possible to selectively apply it to the start or the end separately, firstly in the event where one end failed but the other succeeded, and secondly because it might reflect the design intent, to extend only in one direction.
Sign In or Register to comment.