Tree Management Strategies (tagging, naming)

wiley

I know there are a couple of other threads about desired features for tree management. However, I'd like to discuss strategies that will work now using just the tree search bar functionality that currently exists. Personally, I'm a huge fan of search/filtering based organization. I find it's faster and easier to manage. Anyway, I've spent some of today trying to devise a naming/tagging scheme. Here's what I have so far:

#partName #featureName #featureType (description)

example:

#Chassis #outsideProfile | #sk
#Chassis #outsideProfile #e (base feature)
#Chassis #mountingboss #sk
#Chassis #mountingBoss #e

I've been tagging things with feature type, using a single letter ot two to make typing quicker:

• #sk - Sketch
• #e - Extrude
• #c - Cut
• #r - Revolve
• #sw - Sweep
• #p - Plane

This lets you easily see all the tree items associated with a part, or all the sketches, etc. It would be wonderful if the search bar could filter for each of the four categories above (part, feature, type, description) so you could easily find all the extrudes assiciated with a given part.

Just curious if anyone else has a better scheme or thoughts on the matter. I don't want to discuss whetehr or not we need folders, etc. Rather, I'd like to hear how a search-based method might work. One that can be manually used now and maybe semi-automated by onshape down the line.

3dcad

Was this before or after the recent update which included:

Feature list now can filter by parts.

3dcad

Was this before or after the recent update which included:

Feature list now can filter by parts.

wiley

@3dcad  - Dang... I missed that. Now all we need is the ability to apply multiple filters

Even better would be tha ability to click on a part in the list, and have it pop up a menu to filter by type then a menu of feature names for that part and type, where it populates the menu with named features from the tree.

andrew_troup

I agree that streamlining of filter choices is an excellent suggestion.

A related point: in a concurrent thread, @traveler_hauptman argues persuasively that folders AND tags are actually needed; the latter does not really serve the same purpose as the former.

The nature of the inter-part relationships in Onshape Part studios certainly means that giving a meaningful 'shape and flow' to the feature list is more challenging than in legacy MCAD modellers.