copy a sketch/features from one part studio to another still not possible in 2020?

rune_thorsen229

Hi, I look for an effective way of copying sketches and other items from the featurelist to another part studio and it seems to be all based on  some 'workaround'.
Can anyone confirm that a simple simple copy/move of sections from a featurelist (containing whatever) to another is still not possible?

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/6459/copy-part-from-one-parts-studio-to-another

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/43676

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/2477

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/2484

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/28786

Closest answer

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/13980

But you need to fix names and some constraints

NeilCooke

@rune_thorsen229 I'm still not sure exactly what you're trying to achieve and why you have to work this way? If it is a student project (are you a student or a teacher?) then why not share it with us and we can help you find better ways of working. I think we've established by now that what you are asking for cannot be done.

Jake_Rosenfeld

@rune_thorsen229

Yes, I'm on the Part Studio dev team.

I agree that it programmatically possible to implement a copy/paste of a set of independent Part Studio features.  The first few challenges that come to mind is that the scope is very limited, and the user experience is confusing.  It would take some amount of work to implement something like that, but the payoff is very limited because it's really only ever useful on the first few features of the Part Studio.  It's also a significant user experience challenge of how to figure out how to present an option like this to the user, how to express in a simple way when it is and isn't available, and why it isn't available when it isn't available.

Is this something that you have seen/used in other systems?  Can you explain more about how an operation like this fits into your workflow, and would fit into the workflow of Onshape users in general?

rune_thorsen229

Using sketch copy on two sketches

pasting results in this. Note the connecting part position needs to be manually fixed.

NeilCooke

@rune_thorsen229 I'm still not sure exactly what you're trying to achieve and why you have to work this way? If it is a student project (are you a student or a teacher?) then why not share it with us and we can help you find better ways of working. I think we've established by now that what you are asking for cannot be done.

rune_thorsen229

Thanks NeilCooke, that answers the question. 
Why is it strange to want to copy sketches, mates and features when you can duplicate an entire part studio? The frustration is that seemingly similar operations are possible for some elements and not for others. 
As for your proposal to share ill be happy, how do I contact you?

As for your question I do research on co-designing 3D printed assistive technology. Yes I have some design students and they are quite reluctant to use Onshape and they keep falling back to SolidWorks. Onshape has some unique features which makes it attractive for co-design studies you can see our publication: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400435.2019.1634660
So far my experience is that it takes too much effort to understand, the sometimes counterintuitive workflow (based upon student feedback and questions in the forum)

NeilCooke

Thanks for the background info.

I don't think it's strange to want to copy design details from one place to another, just that there may be better ways. It's been a while since I last used SolidWorks, but can it be done there?

You can share to ncooke@onshape.com

Jake_Rosenfeld

@rune_thorsen229

If the designs are indeed similar with just minor changes, would it be possible to use configurations?
https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/configurations.htm

rune_thorsen229

Jake_Rosenfeld, thanks for your answer, sorry I don't understand it. I guess I have to study 'configurations' then?
Is it pertinent to the actual question and the cited discussions?
Neil said: " what you are asking for cannot be done" and I have accepted it as an answer so I assume I ought to check No on "Did this answer the question? Yes · No"

Jake_Rosenfeld

@rune_thorsen229

Here is our intro video about configurations from when we released it:
https://www.onshape.com/videos/introducing-onshape-configurations

Our learning center also has lots of info on it:
https://learn.onshape.com/catalog?query=configurations

The reason I mention it is because if the goal of what you're doing is to model a bunch of very similar parts that just have minor differences, configurations is a much better approach than duplicating a bunch of work across different Part Studios.

To answer your question, though, our "Copy sketch"/"Copy sketch entities" and "Paste sketch entities" functionality seems to work fine across part studios and even across part studios of different documents.  This workflow is described in this help documentation:
https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/sketch_basics.htm
Is this the sort of functionality you are looking for?  You can right click any sketch and select "Copy sketch", and then go to a different part studio, initiate a sketch on the desired plane, right click and select "Paste sketch entities" and that sketch that you want to copy will show up. The reason this isn't great is because it loses all associativity with the original sketch.  So if you change the original sketch, none of the other ones will have any idea that there has been an update, and your designs will be inconsistent with each other.

If you want to reference to be associative, you could use the "Derived" feature to import sketch geometry from one part studio to another.  The just imports the geometry though,  it will not show up as an editable sketch feature.  If you configure the part studio with the master sketch in it though, you could expose a set of parameters as a part of the derive, so that you could be importing the sketch with a variable for "width" or something.

rune_thorsen229

Jake_Rosenfeld. Very nice answer, but - not to be rude but to make my point-  if your wife asks you if you could buy some apples do you come home with beer and explains her that it tastes better.  ;-P 
However thanks for your comment, may come in handy.
NeilCooke said: " what you are asking for cannot be done" and I have accepted it as an answer.
May I ask you for a comment on this ?

NeilCooke

@rune_thorsen229 I also said "I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve" - once that is established we can point you in the right direction.

The apples and beer trick works for me every time.

Jake_Rosenfeld

@rune_thorsen229

Does the "Copy sketch" portion of my answer help at all?  It seems like that's what you're looking for in your original question.

rune_thorsen229

Jake_Rosenfeld If you check https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/60407/#Comment_60407 i did the  "Copy sketch"
NeilCooke and discovered a lot about Onshape (thanks) and answered quite clearly https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/60408/#Comment_60408. As of now the conclusion is that a copy past does not work very well on items in the feature list. What I'd like to see was that you could draft sketches and mates in one tab (feature studio) and simply copy them to another tab. So to answer, no your answer was not what I was looking for. It appears to me  that you cannot select instances; for example sketch1 & sketch2 & some connector & feature - copy and paste them into another tab. Now if they depends on other instances in the tab (studio) it's perfectly understandable, but if they were self-contained (like referencing top plane) , then it should be programmatically simple .


 Are you in the development team of Onshape? 

rune_thorsen229

Jake_Rosenfeld, I just watched the configuration video. Interesting, but I think it serves a different purpose. If this list applies to the whole document it would be a useful substitution for variables which only applies to the current studio (which I find annoying). I know I can do it with featurescript but ....

Jake_Rosenfeld

@rune_thorsen229

Yes, I'm on the Part Studio dev team.

I agree that it programmatically possible to implement a copy/paste of a set of independent Part Studio features.  The first few challenges that come to mind is that the scope is very limited, and the user experience is confusing.  It would take some amount of work to implement something like that, but the payoff is very limited because it's really only ever useful on the first few features of the Part Studio.  It's also a significant user experience challenge of how to figure out how to present an option like this to the user, how to express in a simple way when it is and isn't available, and why it isn't available when it isn't available.

Is this something that you have seen/used in other systems?  Can you explain more about how an operation like this fits into your workflow, and would fit into the workflow of Onshape users in general?

rune_thorsen229

Jake_Rosenfeld said:

@rune_thorsen229

Yes, I'm on the Part Studio dev team.

I agree that it programmatically possible to implement a copy/paste of a set of independent Part Studio features.  The first few challenges that come to mind is that the scope is very limited, and the user experience is confusing.  It would take some amount of work to implement something like that, but the payoff is very limited because it's really only ever useful on the first few features of the Part Studio.  It's also a significant user experience challenge of how to figure out how to present an option like this to the user, how to express in a simple way when it is and isn't available, and why it isn't available when it isn't available.

Is this something that you have seen/used in other systems?  Can you explain more about how an operation like this fits into your workflow, and would fit into the workflow of Onshape users in general?

Thanks Jake, as for UX I think its extremely confusing the general inconsistency of what is possible or not (check my recent posts). Some things you can transform, somethings not. Sketches can be inserted in assemblies directly but not from in-context etc. 
As for other systems they had other issues and I see my students have been frustrated as well.
As for " how an operation like this fits into your workflow" the discussions cited should suffice. I'd be happy to give my 2 cents but it would bring this thread offtrack. Let me know how I can be of service.

P.S. The answer from TimRice  to https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/13090/fastened-mate-orientation-error-bug-unexpected-behaviour
was not very encouraging.

Jake_Rosenfeld

@rune_thorsen229

The thread has really focused very specifically on wanting to be able to copy features from one Part Studio to another.  The important question I am trying to get at is Why you want to copy features from one Part Studio to another.  Understanding the big picture allows us take a holistic look at what the real problem is, make general suggestions based on what already exists in the system, and start developing plans for general functionality that could be introduced in the future.

I don't think that adding your two cents would bring this thread off track; the most important aspect of threads like this is why this functionality is needed in the big picture.

rune_thorsen229

Jake_Rosenfeld Ill answer my 'two cents' over here then: 
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/13067/how-to-create-a-3d-model-from-orthogonal-projection-orthographic-projection#latest


see also: https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/12251/copy-paste-notes-tables-between-drawings

Finally I could be handy to be able to simply copy mate connectors as well instead of having to go through the redefining each time you need a duplicate. 
P.S. When copying features they should copy their name as well.

Than_Bogan

I am extremely surprised that this isn't considered a commonplace operation.  I have no background in CAD prior to OnShape, so I have no idea what has been done historically.  But to me it makes complete sense that I'd be messing around with some ideas in a separate Part Studio, and then if I get to a point where the experiment makes some sense, I want it to become part of my "real" Part Studio.
Example reasons for the separate studio in the first place: 1) MUCH faster updating if the main Part Studio is complex.  2) Conceptually easier to keep experimental ideas separate from working ones.
Example reasons for wanting to move the new stuff into the main Part Studio:  Various further modifications that are complex and involve other parts, such as adding on some standard appendages or carving a track for something else to connect or insert.

I've come to this point "naturally" many times, including right now, and am surprised every time that the ability to move a whole bunch of feature steps from one Part Studio to another is still not possible.  I generally end up starting over again and recreating the now-mostly-working part step by step over in the main studio.  Considering the immense power and general awesomeness of OnShape, this seems ludicrous.

EvanReese

Than_Bogan said:

I am extremely surprised that this isn't considered a commonplace operation.  I have no background in CAD prior to OnShape, so I have no idea what has been done historically.  But to me it makes complete sense that I'd be messing around with some ideas in a separate Part Studio, and then if I get to a point where the experiment makes some sense, I want it to become part of my "real" Part Studio.
Example reasons for the separate studio in the first place: 1) MUCH faster updating if the main Part Studio is complex.  2) Conceptually easier to keep experimental ideas separate from working ones.
Example reasons for wanting to move the new stuff into the main Part Studio:  Various further modifications that are complex and involve other parts, such as adding on some standard appendages or carving a track for something else to connect or insert.

I've come to this point "naturally" many times, including right now, and am surprised every time that the ability to move a whole bunch of feature steps from one Part Studio to another is still not possible.  I generally end up starting over again and recreating the now-mostly-working part step by step over in the main studio.  Considering the immense power and general awesomeness of OnShape, this seems ludicrous.

For this i usually just copy the whole part studio and delete features I don't need. It doesn't feel roundabout to me, but maybe I'm just used to it.

EvanReese

Having used Onshape around 5 years now, I don't think I've ever wanted to copy/paste a whole batch of features from one place to another, but it could just be me. The one place where I find myself consistently wanting to duplicate features is just to make a copy of one that takes a lot of setup, so I can edit it and only change the one or two things I want to change, without having to re-do the whole thing. This would be useful for many native features that can have a lot of clicks. For example, an extrude, with 2 directions, up to faces, with offsets, for example. I might want to follow it up immediately with an identical extrude set to "remove" with a different merge scope. This becomes even more valuable with many custom features, which have many more UI inputs. I made a freeform spline the other day with 20+ points to route a wire. I wanted to duplicate it and just change the ends to route a second wire, but that's not possible. If I could have just right clicked the feature and picked "duplicate" it would have saved a ton of time.

tim_hess427

@rune_thorsen229 - This is an interesting discussion. I think the thing to keep in mind is that behind the interface, the part studio is quite literally code.  Each feature in the feature tree is using methods that take inputs from the user, evaluate other objects, and create new objects. 

So, just like you technically could copy and paste blocks of code from one program to another, there's a large chance you'd have to rewrite a lot of it. I can find tons of examples of code in documentation and stack overflow, but if I copy/paste any of it, I'll have to rename variable and function names at a minimum and the amount of re-writing goes up a lot with complexity.

So, trying to copy/paste a feature from one part studio to another, is really just trying to copy a method call from a specific program and context and pasting it into a different program with a different context. 

disclaimer: I'm not a programmer, but know some of the basics. Apologies for screwing up any software ideas. 

Also, @rune_thorsen229 - I pulled up your co-design paper abstract and looking forward to seeing where that line of inquiry goes! Its along the same lines as the research I was doing in graduate school and I've also ended up working with 3D printed, mass-customized medical devices as well. From what I know about onshape and other CAD options available, I'd bet onshape is best suited for that sort of activity once the participants get over the learning curve. 

Kedarnath_Malapati

I would like this feature as will. Also it would be nice to have a feature where we can move around an unconstrained sketch by temporarily constraining all of its dimensions. This would allow the sketch to be rotated and transformed while keeping its shape.

timothy_kolar

I may have missed the resolution to this, but here is my use case for copying parts of sketches between Part Studios.  I'll be first to admit there's an easy workaround, but copy and paste would be the obvious solution.

I have a wide variety of parts that serve many different purposes, but they are modular -- you can connect any one of them to another.  It would be very convenient to paste the mortises and tenons between them.   Once again, the parts are not variants of one another, they just share a single small element.

Today, for example, I am taking a part that was not originally modular and converting it.  Copying just a mortise and a tenon to the new part would make it easy to guarantee compatibility.

To help visualize, here is an example of a center piece with mortises on the top and left and tenons on the bottom and right.  You could easily build a grid out of these pieces.

eric_pesty

You can't copy features but you can copy sketches no? At least within tabs of one document...

glen_dewsbury

Coming from other cad packages I was used to the idea of copy and paste to repeat geometry from part to part and was looking for same in OS when starting out. 
However, it didn't take long to realize derived function for repeat geometry (sketches & solids) and variants was a much better option. Had a bunch of equipment hooks in all sorts of shapes and sizes but the very detailed hooks at the back end for hanging on a custom peg board were all the same.
No need to copy and paste.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/2679577427d13b4e8513a641/w/1e9edde7e2cde1617682453f/e/40c61813a15e5397d9823bc8

timothy_kolar

eric_pesty said:

You can't copy features but you can copy sketches no? At least within tabs of one document...

Yes, it's the fact that I can't copy them between documents that I'm trying to solve.

Variants are very useful for things that are closely related.  Equipment hooks are a good example.

However, for me a small bowl, a benchtop vice, and the plastics for a set of soldering "helping hands" all belong in different documents with their own sets of variants.  Putting all of them in the same document as variants of one another doesn't seem right to me, but it's possible I'm missing the zen of this. 

timothy_kolar

eric_pesty said:

You can't copy features but you can copy sketches no? At least within tabs of one document...

Yes, it's the fact that I can't copy them between documents that I'm trying to solve.

Variants are very useful for things that are closely related.  Equipment hooks are a good example.

However, for me a small bowl, a benchtop vice, and the plastics for a set of soldering "helping hands" all belong in different documents with their own sets of variants.  Putting all of them in the same document as variants of one another doesn't seem right to me, but it's possible I'm missing the zen of this. 

timothy_kolar

eric_pesty said:

You can't copy features but you can copy sketches no? At least within tabs of one document...

Yes, it's the fact that I can't copy them between documents that I'm trying to solve.

Variants are very useful for things that are closely related.  Equipment hooks are a good example.

However, for me a small bowl, a benchtop vice, and the plastics for a set of soldering "helping hands" all belong in different documents with their own sets of variants.  Putting all of them in the same document as variants of one another doesn't seem right to me, but it's possible I'm missing the zen of this. 

timothy_kolar

eric_pesty said:

You can't copy features but you can copy sketches no? At least within tabs of one document...

Yes, it's the fact that I can't copy them between documents that I'm trying to solve.

Variants are very useful for things that are closely related.  Equipment hooks are a good example.

However, for me a small bowl, a benchtop vice, and the plastics for a set of soldering "helping hands" all belong in different documents with their own sets of variants.  Putting all of them in the same document as variants of one another doesn't seem right to me, but it's possible I'm missing the zen of this. 

timothy_kolar

eric_pesty said:

You can't copy features but you can copy sketches no? At least within tabs of one document...

Yes, it's the fact that I can't copy them between documents that I'm trying to solve.

Variants are very useful for things that are closely related.  Equipment hooks are a good example.

However, for me a small bowl, a benchtop vice, and the plastics for a set of soldering "helping hands" all belong in different documents with their own sets of variants.  Putting all of them in the same document as variants of one another doesn't seem right to me, but it's possible I'm missing the zen of this. 

timothy_kolar

eric_pesty said:

You can't copy features but you can copy sketches no? At least within tabs of one document...

Yes, it's the fact that I can't copy them between documents that I'm trying to solve.

Variants are very useful for things that are closely related.  Equipment hooks are a good example.

However, for me a small bowl, a benchtop vice, and the plastics for a set of soldering "helping hands" all belong in different documents with their own sets of variants.  Putting all of them in the same document as variants of one another doesn't seem right to me, but it's possible I'm missing the zen of this.