Duplicating part and editing it while keeping the original (in the same part studio)

shafkat_khondker

Hello, 

I have a cylinder with a hole 2mm from the bottom of its base. I want to create another cylinder, exactly the same, but the hole needs to be 4mm from the bottom. 
Is it possible to do this without recreating the entire cylinder again? I want both the cylinders to be in the same part studio, but if I simply copy it, then both of them gets changed at once; probably because they are referenced to each other. Any help will be much appreciated! Thanks!

NeilCooke

You can use configurations to create different variations of a part - they can't exist at the same time in a part studio, but you can assemble both into an assembly and use in-context editing if they are both part of the same design. Hope that makes sense.

Alternatively, you could duplicate the part studio and use Derived to get them back together in the same part studio.

shafkat_khondker

Thanks a lot, I will try that. Just to clarify, in my part studio I have two parts, one is a base plate and another is the cylinder that I want to duplicate. Once I duplicate my part studio, both of those parts will be duplicated into another part studio. Then after making changes to the cylinder, is it possible to use Derive to get just the edited cylinder back into the first part studio?

philip_thomas

@shafkat_khondker - I am guessing that that would be possible, but a very messy circular reference.

It would be much easier to generate two configurations of the first part in a Part Studio and then either
1) Derive the desire configuration into a second Part studio to build the second part, or
2) Insert the desired configuration into an Assembly and then build the second part 'In-Context'

These workflows (Configurations and In-Context) are document in the self-paced lessons section in the Learning Center (www.learn.onshape.com)

billy2

I'm going to put it out there ...

"Part Studios create parts & assemblies manage parts"

I think you're trying to manage parts in a part studio and you'd be better off using an assembly to manage your 2 different parts.

I agree with neil & philip. 

I'm just trying to figure out an eloquent way to say it. Everything shouldn't be done in a part studio. We need assemblies.

owen_sparks

@billy2

I hear you, but I don't love Onshape's terminology yet. 

A "Partstudio" sets up an expectation that the user can design stuff there.

An "Assembly" sets up an expectation that we have an area where existing parts can be snapped together like lego.

Now the real power comes with in-context, but as a newbie I'd not expect to design stuff "via" an assembly. 

All the tools are there, I just feel it could be a little move obvious as to good workflows.

Owen S.

billy2

Yeah, I hear you, it's convoluted and has always been. "Design in an assembly" is a 30 year old patch.

Hopefully we can get it straightened out in OS and help people construct meaningful projects. In other systems, it's not that well done.

For a beginner, part studios are the place to start. Onshape has made part studios easier to go further and this is a good thing. But you can't design automated equipment this way, or you shouldn't. You really need structure especially when there are 2 people working on something.

Where I'm coming from: yay, I just won a project that'll take 6 engineers 2 years to complete, where do I begin? Oddly, not a part studio. You're better off in the assembly and defining your datums so everyone uses them. Some would call this a skeleton. You break up the top assembly into sub-assemblies to hand out to your engineers and hopefully sharing enough datums keeping them working towards a common goal. In this world, no one starts with a blank assembly. The start assembly should always have the datums defined from the top level. This works really well for larger projects.

Not everything is one engineer, one design or one part.

Please, if a part studio is rocking it for you, don't change.

billy2

In context, designing in the assembly, has a bad reputation for assembly references. In an assembly, making this part behave from that part requires an assembly reference.

If this is done, you need 2 parts & 1 assembly. Who can keep that straight? 

You don't have to make those types of assignments if you don't want them. You don't have to create assembly references (in context references) but you can still work in the assembly seeing everything. An inventor designer was asked why he wanted to delete in context references? His comment was to keep the project clean which is a great answer. This has to be managed in all parametric systems.

In context, for me, I move a shaft's datum 10mm over, and everything updates. Mounts re-attach, brackets update & components move. After all, parametric systems allow change. Well how does the next guy know what to change? That's the job of the datums. Move a datum, and things should update. The more complex updates get, the more difficult it is to make it understandable for the next guy. At this level, I don't plan on having someone run the model. I do plan on making all the changes in the design meeting and being done when the meeting is over.

When things goto manufacturing, all this stuff must stop. Projects for manufacturing must be immutable with one solution and no variation possible. We're struggling with this issue currently from old projects. Can anyone say version? Why use an older system?

Most my little motorcycle projects are assemblies without in context references. You don't have to create the references, you can work in an assembly easily.

Try it, you'll like it.