New Custom Features: Mold Design

NeilCooke

On Thursday, 12/12/19, I hosted a webinar to talk about mold design methodologies in Onshape and to introduce 4 new custom features. The replay of the webinar can be found here.



As the names suggest, these custom features automate the creation of core and cavity geometry. A number of Onshape users have already beta-tested these features for me using real-world customer examples. If you want to try them out, please do. However, the features will remain in beta for now so I can get more feedback and more examples to test against. The features are fairly intuitive, but if you try them out and you don't get the results you expect, please make sure you review the webinar video where I explain the rules behind how the geometry is created, plus a few tips & tricks on how to get a mold to split.

The features can be found here.

A big thank you to all my beta-testers and a thank you in advance to all those who submit examples!

Remember, you don’t have to copy the Document to use these custom features, just add them to your toolbar using the “Custom features” button at the top of the Document. You can also find them in FeatureScript Samples.

Henk_de_Vlaam

@NeilCooke,
Nice! Curious about the features and webinar.
And... do I see separate colored surfaces in one part?

bruce_williams

I have been fortunate to have been introduced to these tools early.  As a shop that makes all kinds of tooling, molds, patterns we need this functionality on most jobs.  I am very impressed with the approach Neil has done here. It is robust and flexible.  I really like the 'Shutoff Surface' method (vs SW parting line) which is very good at finding the parting and then is easily modified for the next step of 'Parting Surface' generation.  The options are handy for the various conditions we always face in mold/tool design.  These tools are going to open up a wide range of use in our market.

NeilCooke

Henk_de_V said:

And... do I see separate colored surfaces in one part?

Not just yet.....

EvanReese

is there a recording of this webinar somewhere?

michael3424

@Evan_Reese - the webinars are usually available here: https://www.onshape.com/learn/webinars

EvanReese

michael3424 said:

@Evan_Reese - the webinars are usually available here: https://www.onshape.com/learn/webinars

thanks!

jelte_steur814

@NeilCooke
thanks for the webinar! i'm a fan of these features and use them regularly.

1) I have some feedback / an improvement request for the 'Mold Stock' feature. is there a particular place person I can drop that? (see below)
2)  in the Webinar or somewhere i saw some option to import standard Hasco moldbases or something. is that another FS or still in the works?

Feedback:
When modeling a part it's often very easy to also create the parting surfaces. These can then be used in the 'parting surface FS', which i still find rather fidgety and cumbersome for complex parts.
the Mold Stock feature however doesn't scale and transform the surfaces along with the part. so all is lost! this is quite a bummer.
could selection of surfaces to be scaled/transformed along with the mould part be enabled?

kind regards

Jelte


____
My goodness that is quick. V11 is up and running 4 hours later and it's implemented! awesome!!!

NeilCooke

jelte_steur814 said:

@NeilCooke
thanks for the webinar! i'm a fan of these features and use them regularly.

1) I have some feedback / an improvement request for the 'Mold Stock' feature. is there a particular place person I can drop that? (see below)
2)  in the Webinar or somewhere i saw some option to import standard Hasco moldbases or something. is that another FS or still in the works?

Feedback:
When modeling a part it's often very easy to also create the parting surfaces. These can then be used in the 'parting surface FS', which i still find rather fidgety and cumbersome for complex parts.
the Mold Stock feature however doesn't scale and transform the surfaces along with the part. so all is lost! this is quite a bummer.
could selection of surfaces to be scaled/transformed along with the mould part be enabled?

kind regards

Jelte


____
My goodness that is quick. V11 is up and running 4 hours later and it's implemented! awesome!!!

It seemed like a good idea so I added it (though I had to fix up the Mold Split feature as well so it took longer than usual). The features are still labelled BETA because I DO want feedback...

With regards to the mold plates feature - I never released it because there is not enough content (only HASCO metric, only about a dozen size permutations).

jelte_steur814

@NeilCooke
Hi Neil,

Nice to know that this is the proper channel to provide the feedback to you.

I understand that the mold plate feature was never further developed.
however, regarding HASCO, I can see that they're linked to a.o. Creo from PTC and some other 'interfaces' (API's?).
Onshape is connected to a bunch of standard part libraries, but there doesn't seem to be an overlap there.
Are you aware of a method to access HASCO's CAD libraries other than manually?

At the moment i've been playing around with it: in the coming months i'll be doing some more serious mould design so i'll keep you posted.
Any tips/tricks/developments going on with regards to undercuts? at the moment i'm trying to use these features and Hack my way through the undercut issues, but it's rather difficult.


Best

Jelte

jelte_steur814

@NeilCooke

I found a small bug, but it was easy to solve so this is just FYI.
BTW: the automation this Featurescript allows is awesome!

I'm making 12 different mould cavities based on a configurable part and because of this  automation i only design 1 cavity/core: duplicate the part studio: reconfigure the part and it all updates automatically. 

I’m making a mold with your mold feature scripts based off a configurable part that I derived into a new feature studio for the mold.

 I first loaded my “XL” sized part. Then set the mould size to be 90*90*30 mm size

 Then realized I should work with “XXL” first and changed the derived part.

The mold stock window still has the same absolute and the same offset values.

 In practice it uses the offset values. So even though I’ve used the 90*90*30 mm boxes, and those values are still displayed, the mold stock is actually 98.xxx when I loaded XXL.

 

Solution:

In the mold stock window, I deselected and reselected the derived part. It then loads it and the problem is solved.

So no biggy for now; just FYI.

 

All the best

 

Jelte Steur

NeilCooke

Thanks @jelte_steur814 - I'll take a look

konstantin_shiriazdanov

@NeilCooke I also faced that workpiece bounds don't follow offset values if you have configured core body, and switching configurations.

I beleve it happens because of 2 reasons:

1. The editing logic function doesn't recalculate bounds when Mold feature regeneration is triggered by part studio configuration change.

2. In the logic of evaluation bound dimensions specifyed in UI have a higher precedence then bound offsets.

NeilCooke

Editing logic only gets triggered when a user makes a manual change. This is to ensure that each regeneration is deterministic - you wouldn't want your Part Studios regenerating based on some editing logic.

It is true that the Mold Stock feature uses the offsets to determine the stock size - I could add an option to set which takes priority, offsets or absolute sizes - which is better? You tell me.

So what I've added in V12 is a check to see if the part has changed size. If it has, an error is thrown and the new absolute part sizes can be recalculated using a new button on the UI.

Let me know how this works out from a UX perspective - again, I could add a toggle that keeps the absolute size regardless of changes to the part.

Keep the feedback coming!

jelte_steur814

@NeilCooke
Hi Neil.

I think the toggle for priority is a better option. At the moment i'm working with a configurable part, loaded into a configurable 'mould' part studio, loaded into a configurable sub assembly loaded into the final mould assembly. From the final mould assembly I  configure the six sizes for the sub assembly which trickles down to the mould and part subsequently. The 'toggle' setup would work without me having to go back into the mould part studio and regenerate, so that one is definately preferred.

After working with it this way for some time this is definately confirmed. at the moment i constantly get FeatureScript Notices {!} because the regeneration is in the UI and doesn't trickle down automatically when loading a configured part in subsequent part studio or assembly.

For now I'm working with a work-around: a way too big mould stock, that I then make into an absolute size with a revolve with an 'Interference' boolean afterwards. this works very reliably also. I'm creating round mould shapes for now.
(I also noticed a minor bug before that in the mold stock feature it wouldn't allow me to choose a fillet size that was exactly half the depth/width to make a round stock.)

Best Regards

Jelte

jelte_steur814

@NeilCooke

Hi Neil,


Are you still improving these Feature scripts?

having made a couple more moulds by now: i definatively believe the 'toggle for priority is best'. I almost exclusively choose round numbers or even specific available mould plate sizes for a mould. so changing the values to absolute ones is quite needed: i keep on working with work-arounds so far.

Moreover: another improvement request is on the 'move to origin' button. it now uses the centre of gravity of the part i presume? quite often there's a specific position (e.g. the gate) that is preferable on the origin. could that be possible also? now i just transform by mate connector the parts and surfaces again after using the 'mold base' feature.

kind regards

Jelte Steur

NeilCooke

I am still working on them - stay tuned (the move to origin request is trickier than I anticipated).

jelte_steur814

NeilCooke said:

I am still working on them - stay tuned (the move to origin request is trickier than I anticipated).

looking forward to your updates in excited anticipation

ryan_mcgoldrick47

These work pretty well, on all examples I tested with I needed to do some trickery with sweeping and extending surfaces between the features to get parting surfaces and to be able to split the mould though. the options for modifying edges etc in parting surfaces never really solved and on all samples only extrude as the option worked but this is all likely dependent on complexity of the design etc. these were examples with core cavity and 2 sliders.

NeilCooke

@ryan_mcgoldrick47 if you are willing to share those examples with me I can use them to test/fix. DM me. 

jelte_steur814

@NeilCooke; @ryan_mcgoldrick47:
same here: i often use the mold stock feature, then add some features to make the shape of the mould absolute (so it doesn't change when i update the model)
then Mold shutt off surface. Then some manual work on surfaces, Usually skipping the shutt off surface. then split by hand or split mould feature...

jelte_steur814

@NeilCooke
Here's another feature improvement you might consider:
in the mold stock feature: the part is scaled. the best practice in the company I'm freelancing at is to then immediately change the name of the part to "Partname Scaled x%". so the scale factor is visible and cannot be overlooked or forgotten that this is not the intended geometry for measurements.

kind regards

Jelte 

NeilCooke

@jelte_steur814 it’s not possible to change a part name if it has been already changed by the user. Only thing I could do would be to add the scale factor to the mold stock feature name. Alternatively, I could copy the part and rename that (and delete the original) but I can’t access the original part name so I’d have to give it a generic name. Thoughts?

jelte_steur814

@NeilCooke
I've used a slightly altered version of this feature script once.

 https://cad.onshape.com/documents/53c0787aca4a4600cc02892d/v/7700547efb46b66f07dca4c8/e/a58d5f7dd70f171b75da909c 

I was not aware that it wasn't possible to use that after the user has changed the name.
if the part is derived, would that still be considered a user changed name?

kind regards

Jelte

urs_egger099

Hi Neil, 
That's very cool stuff. However I kind of struggle to find the feature script "Mold Plates 1". I'd like to learn a bit more on this topic.

br,
Urs

NeilCooke

urs_egger099 said:

Hi Neil, 
That's very cool stuff. However I kind of struggle to find the feature script "Mold Plates 1". I'd like to learn a bit more on this topic.

br,
Urs

Hi Urs, I never finished that feature mainly because just to get a small sample of catalogue plate sizes took me several hours to input all the possible variations of size and thickness. Shame really because it was rather cool. If I had an intern to do it, that would be great.

jelte_steur814

Hi Neil, (and Urs)

I was also checking if i can automate this a bit more into mouldplates.
I think it may be wise to just use the standard. ISO 6753-2 specifies all standard available mould plate sizes, ejector plate and riser sizes. then the whole thing can be unbranded.

It doesn't however specify the sizes of the holes for the guide pillars and bushings and thread/bolt hole size, so we'd need to scrape that somewhere.

Is there a way @NeilCooke that you can share this project with me and I'll see if I can help out (perhaps in a branch).
I haven't played around with AI LLM's much yet but maybe this will be a nice case to see if I can get it to be an intern for us.

at the moment i just created a configurable partstudio to make the mould plates at standard sizes.
I BTW also have configurable ejectors (but that's at the moment not acoording to the ISO standard but the Meusburger portfolio).
I might make that ISO standard and share it openly later. It's realy helpful to just be able to change an ejector length by changing configuration at the assembly level.

kind regards

Jelte

NeilCooke

@jelte_steur814 I've shared it with you. Remember this was just a prototype and I've not looked at it in over 3 years so there may be a better way to do this. My intention was to add ejectors as individual parts as well. Don't go too mad with this - if you think you have found a better way to either populate the plate "database" or do anything better in general, please get in touch and we can discuss. Thank you!

jelte_steur814

Awesome

romeograham

@NeilCooke I love this toolset for rough tooling layouts and cavitation estimates.

I have been trying to use Variables to set the Mold width offset or the overall mold stock width….but it doesn't seem to work. It can take the variable and the value once, but then once you accept the Mold Stock feature, it no longer uses the variable.

Is this expected?

I'm guessing that you might ignore these because it might allow a user to make a mold stock that is smaller than the part.

Thanks again for a great toolset - and I second all the folks calling for a full-fledge feature set for the real tooling designers using Onshape.

jelte_steur814

Hey @romeograham ,

Have you tried the 'update' button? (right behind the Depth total input)

Out of curiosity (I've only developed injection molds in Onshape and saw people working in Solidworks):

What other feature's are you missing for tooling designers for onshape to become 'full fledge'?