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.

Feature manager tree wishlist

2»

Comments

  • lougallolougallo Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,953
    @brucebartlett That is an interesting implementation.  We are working on some improvements, as mentioned in this thread, but I wondered how many noticed this in Onshape currently.
    • Edit sketch(s) from feature:

      Extrudes...


      Lofts...

    • On hover....


      These are just a few things I currently use when doing some parent/child type troubleshooting...
    Lou Gallo / PD/UX - Support - Community / Onshape, Inc.
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,459 PRO
    Nice!
    I would like to see similar functions when selecting/hovering parts from part list.
    //rami
  • lougallolougallo Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,953
    @3dcad We are working on that.
    Lou Gallo / PD/UX - Support - Community / Onshape, Inc.
  • christian_29christian_29 OS Professional Posts: 15 ✭✭
    In parametric CAD systems you actually have two separate trees. 
    • the feature tree showing the sequence of creating all parts.
    • the parts tree showing all parts and the related features (which you don't show yet) creating them. 
    Today you show that in onshape already but just in one level in each tree. When you now look at the workflow you initially start inside the feature tree creating the initial parts. But when you have more than 10-20 parts you most likely switch more to working with the parts tree because you adjust and modify parts that "fit" together.
    The key here is to provide the right context UI based on selection. Today I can select a part in the workspace and in the feature tree the lastest feature performed on that part is highlighted. And in the parts tree the part is highlighted. But the problem is I could have created features related to a part out of sequence. I created a feature on one part and jumped to the next one and back. Now the feature tree is tough to navigate when I'm looking for what features modified a part. That is why the part tree should show all related features that created that part.

    That said here is the set of features I would like to see for both trees.

    Feature tree:
    • enable tagging; some of it you already do by naming (Sketch, Extrude, etc.) but allow user to create their own tags.
    • provide filter capabilities such as:
      - show creation features only (no sketches)
      - show sketches only
      - show features filtered by tags
    Parts tree:
    • Below each part show the features in sequence that created or manipulated it.
    • Allow user to tag parts.
    • Allow to insert other part studios
    This also brings up the issue to were do you draw the line in regard to Part Studio versa Assembly. I can't modify parts in assemblies and I think that should stay that way. But I need to be able to modify parts from multiple Part Studios in the same place. And that I can't do today in onshape.
    So besides allowing grouping for parts inside part studios I also should be able to "import/show" other part studios in my part tree.

    Another issue are boolean operations that merge or split parts. The feature tree is simple for that since it just show the sequence of manipulation opoerations. For the parts tree that becomes a bit more complicated since you now created or removed parts. One way to solve that is for a merge the new part has now a set of grayed out parts below it with their features that created it. And the first feature on that new part is the boolean feature. For a split each of the new parts has one sub part from which it split off. Now this is simple for one level of splits or merges but when you have lets say 5 of these nested it becomes very complicated to comprehend. So I would always display the latest only and hide any other levels under "...". 

    On a last note hierachical tress are a good thing as long as you limit the amount of levels you enable. Most people (except engineers) don't think in hierachies. They more think like tagging works. These 5 parts belong to this tag but 2 of these also belong to another tag. So enabling tagging in both trees enables the user to work and name things the way they want to work. 

    Hope this helps.


  • claudio_2claudio_2 Member, Developers Posts: 8 ✭✭
    Also for me the space on the tree is a problem. I would like to have folders, to group features, I also like icons or an coloured dot to discriminate features types, I wolud like also to manage the character dimension an the space between the lines.  
  • florianflorian Member, OS Professional Posts: 110 PRO
    I really love the Idea with the breadcrumbs. That is what I am missing most. Make it accessible with the right klick menu. However It will be hard to implement with many nested booleans.

    Here's a quick copy paste version of the tree with icons and a colored part list. I didn't even have to move around anything. However: I tend to rename only sketches and planes. The list gets a bit cluttered this way.

  • james_kingdonjames_kingdon Member Posts: 10 ✭✭✭
    I would love to just be able to select a contiguous set of features, mark them as a group and have them collapsible in exactly the same way as the Default geometry section at the beginning. That would solve 99% of my feature management problems.
  • CaptainBisquickCaptainBisquick OS Professional Posts: 33 ✭✭
    edited February 2016
    I'm agreeing with james_kingdon more lately. On a document with lots of of features, having groups would make naming so much simpler. If I can group features based on the part, I don't have to care so much about naming every operation I add. Without groups, it's a constant battle of "How do I name this so that later on, I can understand what it's for, just by reading it in the list?"

    Also, because operation names are so long ("extrude", "thicken", "chamfer"), I've taken to using a text character as an icon. Extrude is =, sketch is #, fillet is r (because it has a 90° curve), chamfers and drafts are /, etc, etc. Just more evidence IMO that the feature list really needs more UI features to keep it manageable.
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,459 PRO
    .. If I can group features based on the part, I don't have to care so much about naming every operation I add. 
    ..
    But features can create multiple parts and sketches can belong to multiple parts - How would you handle these cases?

    Or are you thinking just manual grouping like choose lines, click group, input name, have possibility to collapse/expand to show just name/all contents somehow tagged to certain group?
    //rami
  • florianflorian Member, OS Professional Posts: 110 PRO
    3dcad said:
    Or are you thinking just manual grouping like choose lines, click group, input name, have possibility to collapse/expand to show just name/all contents somehow tagged to certain group?
    That's what I would need. My typical part studio would have groups like:
    • Planes and sketches
    • Main Body
    • Attachments
    • Finish
    • Manufacturing
    I guess you'll need a robust naming convention in your organization. Naming features is a hell. I only always name the planes and sketches. Everything else can be quickly selected in the 3D model – if it doesn't hide behind booleans…
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,459 PRO
    florian said:
    I guess you'll need a robust naming convention in your organization. Naming features is a hell. I only always name the planes and sketches. Everything else can be quickly selected in the 3D model – if it doesn't hide behind booleans…
    I would need but I don't have nerves for that =) I agree that naming is pure pain, especially shared sketches/features. 
    Mostly I will just rename parts and few features/sketches that are most likely accessed often.

    But I'm big fan of multi-part sketches and features so that I can modify multiple things with single edit.

    To be honest I don't know what I should request for making feature list better, my best quick fix is to be able to quickly mark/unmark 'favorites' with star or so and be able to one-click filter only favorites in list.
    I suppose tagging would be the most universal and flexible choice in long haul.
    //rami
  • florianflorian Member, OS Professional Posts: 110 PRO
    3dcad said:
    I suppose tagging would be the most universal and flexible choice in long haul.
    I just read that comment. It's an awesome idea. Since the feature tree is linear using tags would be even better than using groups. The tags should be easy to access. E.g. in the search field like with feature type: "tag:manufacturing", of course with autocomplete that kicks in after the ":"
  • traveler_hauptmantraveler_hauptman Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers Posts: 419 PRO
    @florian If you don't mind the tag being visible, then use the feature tree filter. I would use a feature name like "Pocket rounds (dfm, chk'd TEH 160611)". Entering 'dfm' in the filter will show only features tagged with 'dfm'.


  • emerson_botteroemerson_bottero Member, Developers Posts: 37 ✭✭
    putting the sketch inside the feature in the tree should be easy to implement and should clean the tree a lot.
    i doubt it takes more than one day to implement..  XD
  • florianflorian Member, OS Professional Posts: 110 PRO
    putting the sketch inside the feature in the tree should be easy to implement and should clean the tree a lot.
    Depends a lot on what you are doing. I usually only have 20% sketches. A lot of variables and other features.
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,459 PRO
    @emerson_bottero What if same sketch is used in 20 different features, where would you put it? 
    //rami
  • kevin_quigleykevin_quigley Member Posts: 306 ✭✭✭
    @3dcad in all the features that use it...the feature tree in Onshape is not good at all. These are the issues that drive potential users away and prevent users of other systems from adopting it. Folders. Grouping. Breadcrumbs etc. 
  • emerson_botteroemerson_bottero Member, Developers Posts: 37 ✭✭
    edited June 2016
    3dcad said:
    @emerson_bottero What if same sketch is used in 20 different features, where would you put it? 
    that's easy @3dcad , they all have the same name and the sketch icon would be a little different showing it is shared by many features, but I can edit any of those, they are only links to the same sketch.
  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    I would prefer to put all the features into the main sketch instead of the sketch into the feature or multiple sketches.
  • florianflorian Member, OS Professional Posts: 110 PRO
    _Ðave_ said:
    I would prefer to put all the features into the main sketch instead of the sketch into the feature or multiple sketches.
    I don't like that idea. I don't want to put stuff anywhere. Where would a loft feature go that is based on 2 faces (Start/Stop) and 5 sketches (Center and Guides)? I start to like the idea of feature tagging. Then there could be 3 trees:
    • Feature tree => As it is now
    • Dependency tree => The actual "Tree" of parents and childs
    • Tag "Tree" => Features sorted by tags, foldable
    But the most important feature that should be awesome at first: Make all features selectable from the 3D view. It should go further back in time than one boolean. I want to be able to have a list of all features in the past that were necessary to create that fillet, face, edge… Who needs the tree if we get to everything in 3D view?
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,459 PRO
    florian said:
    Who needs the tree if we get to everything in 3D view?
    Me =) But selecting in 3d view could filter the list to show only sketch/features inside selection?

    @kevin_quigley @emerson_bottero
    I agree that feature tree isn't the best as it is, but if you put same sketch into each feature it's used you end up with even longer list to scroll if you have 'em all expanded.

    I would still prefer tagging, automatic combined with manual. Manual tags user can write what ever keywords, automatic tags would connect part names, feature names, sketch names, used parameters etc.

    To begin with: Add similar filter as we have in recently added tab column, no 'magic' words to memorize just type to filter.
    //rami
  • raj_Onshaperaj_Onshape Onshape Employees Posts: 88
     Who needs the tree if we get to everything in 3D view?
    The user who box selects everything in the graphics view and picks 'Hide all'
  • emerson_botteroemerson_bottero Member, Developers Posts: 37 ✭✭
    edited June 2016
    I liked @florian idea of having different views , is easier to please user giving then the choice of wath is best for them and I don't want to have to put tags every time I make a new sketch. Give the user the choice would please different markets
  • adamohernadamohern Member, OS Professional Posts: 216 PRO
    Some great ideas here. I like tagging, color coding, grouping, nesting, and combining common operations into FeatureScripts. All good solutions.

    @mark_biasotti: I'm a huge fan of yours! In this particular case, however, I have to disagree: absorbed sketches are Satan. It confuses ordered lists in a way that makes things extremely difficult to manage in my workflow, and in teaching SolidWorks courses it was always confusing to students. I was thrilled when SolidWorks finally added the flat-tree, but sad to see that this excluded folders. So if I want to see an actual ordered list of sketches, I must forego the use of folders. To me this was always a huge down-side of SolidWorks, and made me miss CATIA and NX desperately.

    I'd much prefer sketches to be shown inline as they currently are, but to have more smart highlighting to call out parent/child relationships, and better tagging/grouping/folders/nesting to consolidate the list manually. NX has some fantastic nested part functionality that allows complex parts to be comprised multiple nested sub-features. It's very powerful, and badly needed in other systems.

    Adam
Sign In or Register to comment.