Standard Content vs. Configured Hardware

Michael_Coffee

I originally posted an improvement request to answer a dilemma we had dealing with hardware. I've looked at quite a few different solutions to this, but ultimately I'm left with only two solutions that would work for us, and both have their pros and cons. For reference, this request is here: https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/12046/custom-standard-content

Onshape's tool, Standard Content, works very well for what it has. That is about the end of the line for what I'm seeing for us.

Pros:

1. No modeling required
2. Hardware will align with mate connectors and mate when you hover over an option (such as SW mate reference)
3. Can freely switch between sizes and lengths of the hardware inserted
4. Hardware will adapt if more is needed (bolts and washers)
   

Cons:

1. New hardware requires putting in a request to have it modeled, which takes time (not really a con, but unusual hardware would require more than just a single "I edit the length" solution)
2. Cannot switch between hardware types (ANSI to ISO or reverse)
3. Cannot upload vendor information or documentation (such as with a separate document)
4. Can be a little overwhelming if needing to just insert a hex bolt bought at the store and there are 10 options depending on the standard (ie ISO hex head bolts and screws)
5. Cannot search Standard Content for a particular number that is already taken out (have to know already where it exists)
   

Onshape is still being developed, so a few years (if not months, depending) from now, these cons can be sorted out or worked through in some form or fashion when it comes to Standard Content.

In the mean time, I am going to propose using configurations of hardware.

1. Once modeled, becomes customizable for size, length, etc.
2. Vendor information can be upload into the document and becomes searchable (provided the info is set up to be looked up by what you search for)
3. Can be replaced with other configured out with the "Replace Part" feature if done correctly (subject to orientation of models, which should be at least the same).
4. Does not have the "mate references" that Standard Content has, so it would have to be manually placed at least once before using the "Replicate" feature
5. Must be modeled every time if another type is needed later (hex bolt vs counter sunk)

Has anyone found any other solution that works for them? We're open to suggestions.

svenolov_nystrom

I prefer to have standard parts in a separate doc . I use part numbers which has reference to this document It works out very well.

it is flashing to see smart cad sales demo video elaborating with scruw length.

But it gives no big benefit in real work.

Part number and what assortment you have in stock is more important