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.

Using configurations in context

evan_southernevan_southern Member Posts: 4
Might seem dumb but just for the sake of learning how this product works I'm trying to play around with derived sketches, in context editing and configurations using the project linked below.

I used a derived sketch to determine the layout of the fence posts (so that later on I can create the correctly-sized cross slats between them), but some of the posts sit on top of the deck. I tried to use a checkbox configuration in context to boolean subtract the bottoms off the specific instances of my single fence post part where they contact the deck. I understand why the mates don't regenerate properly (I've lopped the mates off along with the bottom of the posts) but is there maybe a better way to do this? Also finding that any sketches I draw after I created the configuration and boolean don't work no matter where I place them in the feature tree.

I might do the same thing with the slats I create and pattern linearly or replicate up and down the fence posts. I only want to make one slat of each size in the part studio but when I pattern them they'll go through the deck at some points. I remember seeing a thread the other day that someone tried to do this and the answers suggested you should be able to edit the individual parts of the pattern with no problem, but I tried this and it didn't work, but I also can't find that thread again....

Thanks

Answers

  • brucebartlettbrucebartlett Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,029 PRO
    Hi Evan, I can't  see the link to the document
    Engineer ı Product Designer ı Onshape Consulting Partner
    Twitter: @onshapetricks  & @babart1977   
  • brucebartlettbrucebartlett Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,029 PRO
    edited April 5
    I don't understand why every single comment or post of mine needs to go through moderation, so for time's sake, here is the link. Thanks for answering.
    https://cad.onshape.com/documents/057dacfb7edb9b41af39d726/w/689840445c7d588f0e3412d0/e/7f04d89aba2a247220e118fd


    Not sure why your comments are not working must be a security issue.

    Taking a look at the doc, I'd suggest using a move face or replace face rather than a boolean, that way you will not be making a new face reference
    Engineer ı Product Designer ı Onshape Consulting Partner
    Twitter: @onshapetricks  & @babart1977   
  • evan_southernevan_southern Member Posts: 4
    I don't understand why every single comment or post of mine needs to go through moderation, so for time's sake, here is the link. Thanks for answering.
    https://cad.onshape.com/documents/057dacfb7edb9b41af39d726/w/689840445c7d588f0e3412d0/e/7f04d89aba2a247220e118fd


    Not sure why your comments are not working must be a security issue.

    Taking a look at the doc, I'd suggest using a move face or replace face rather than a boolean, that way you will not be making a new face reference
    So I did try that (and just updated the document). Replace face and move face both work in shortening the post, but maintain the mate connector so continue to shift the post back down through the deck to mate to my layout sketch. I guess the problem here is that I shouldn't use a layout sketch that is at the origin to mate these things to.

    The reason I used the subtract boolean is that it didn't actually move the post, but that has the effect of losing the mate connector.

    Am I missing something?
Sign In or Register to comment.