Improvements to Onshape - August 6, 2015

lougallo

Today I am excited to tell you about a number of new features that have been added to Onshape.  Many of these were among the top requests submitted and we look forward to having you give them a try.  
Highlights include:

1. NEW Hole feature - Add various hole types into parts (Part Studios) with stack and depth intelligence.
   
   https://youtu.be/408ixoD64QM
   
   
2. NEW Derived feature - Add existing parts, sketches, planes, helices, and mate connectors into another Part Studio.  This is linked to the original and any changes will update everywhere the derived feature exists.
   
   https://youtu.be/E5y3P8vs5fY
   
   
3. NEW Import DXF/DWG into sketches - Import DWG/DXF in as a sketch in Part Studios. This is a powerful way to re-use legacy data for profiles in Onshape.
   
   https://youtu.be/XWLQ5EMPRZo
   
   
4. NEW Mate limits - New option in all mates except ball and fasten to limit the range of motion.
   
   https://youtu.be/qO8FYWtO6SQ
   
   
5. NEW Materials - New option for part properties -> Assign materials.  Materials assign density and is used by the measure/mass property tool for parts and assemblies.  Unit settings also were updated for options for mass.
   
   https://youtu.be/zcpD241Hth8
   
   

Honorable mentions:

• Document page filters - If you have a filter set (i.e. Shared with me) and enter a document, clicking on the Onshape logo or the hamburger menu (three bar upper left -> Close document) will return you to the filter you were in and the previous scroll position.
• View constraints (when errors exist) - We made some adjustments to easily see constraints when something is wrong.  This is the first step to being able to manage your constraints and the first priority was to make sure when something is wrong, you can see it.)
• Document size - There is now a column to show the document size.
  
  
• Update UI in Manage account screens - A little cleanup, additions and responsive layout or the Manage account screens.
  
  
• STL out from Assemblies

As I always say, we are interested in your feedback so if you give the new features a try, come on back here and let us know how we did.  Again, special thanks to @cody_armstrong for all the videos... they are awesome!  ~Lou

Remember: The updates listed here are now live for all users when creating new documents and over the next few days these features will also be available in documents created before the date of this update.

UPDATE: For those of you that had mentioned the drill and countersink angles were off in the new Hole feature, we have updated this so all new holes should be correct. 

brucebartlett

Great List of Improvements. Well Done

nav

Hi @lougallo when I saw the post to be honest I thought Drawings Features  yay !!!, I know you guys are working hard on getting that one out. Just tried the new features, work like a charm excellent job you guys. Thanks.

andrew_troup

Far out guys: this would have to be the most heavy-hitting, ambitious release yet.
I don't normally comment until I've had a chance to try stuff, but I just couldn't contain myself that long.
Forza, Onshape!

_Ðave_

This one is big Gr8 Job Guys.

3dcad

I'm speechless. Congratulations Onshape team!

To keep you going; add parametric (named) dimensions and I will begin moving product data in!

pete_yodis

Awesome update.  I will be loving the derived capability.  This will allow me to finish something up just it time...

3dcad

It is nice to see the filesize. I had a simple document with 114mb size - took a copy and it was 4mb.
I think we need 'clear history' button for reducing filesize if history isn't needed anymore (archive).

srbh

I was called into the Headmasters office because my document occupied 1.5Gb. Actually OnShape was very helpful and copying to a new document reduced the size to 15Mb. This lost all my history that mainly comprised my amateurish flounderings. I agree that the free user will have to be careful with housekeeping.

3dcad

Now the 4mb document wen't to 9mb and I didn't even open it

brucebartlett

3dcad said:

Now the 4mb document wen't to 9mb and I didn't even open it

That is most likely the upgrade to the new file version. You should be able to see this in the document history "Automatic Upgrade".

I am also with you on the naming and link dimension's. Is this logged for voting on the improvement request?

cs

Great job. The derived part feature is great. 
Materials are great, but I am wondering how you chose what materials to put on the list. It does not have PLA plastic or medium-density fiberboard, but it does have plutonium. What are people designing with Onshape?
As others mentioned above, parametric dimensions and drawings would be the last two pieces of the puzzle for me. Getting very close to turning the CAD world upside down.

juan_aviles

Materials!!  This was a big one for me, so I was pretty happy to see it in this round.  

3dcad

brucebartlett said:

3dcad said:

Now the 4mb document wen't to 9mb and I didn't even open it

That is most likely the upgrade to the new file version. You should be able to see this in the document history "Automatic Upgrade".

I am also with you on the naming and link dimension's. Is this logged for voting on the improvement request?

Imagine if I was on free plan and have 40mb and it suddenly went to 90mb.. 

I think we don't need votes for parametric dimension anymore if I have understood correctly it should be on the tube already.. Can you confirm the need for votes on this @lougallo ?

billy2

derived capability - Yahoo!

robert_westling

Fantastic, limits! And on Android in the same week. That's that, sign me up. (Or, I suppose that means I should sign myself up...) Nice work Onshape team, thanks!

peter_hall

Just tried out the mates limits on sliding mates. Good improvement although positive dimensions only so will need to take care where and which way the mate is on design to make minimum 0mm and maximum +???mm to make it work correctly. Will try the other mates but certainly gives the basis for good motion models. I had an earlier discussion on this with @3dcad  , improvements could be made using the mate connectors to limit movements. 

traveler_hauptman

I see there was some improvements for constraints, and this very nice improvement request got checked off as done but I'm not finding anything related to the improvement request in the current release. What am I missing?

nav

Hi @traveler_hauptman I found this comment on the improvement engine maybe this answers your question.
 
https://onshape.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/204547138-Constraints-1-Viewing-and-deletion

andrew_troup

Yes, Lou, please reinstate the improvement request.
 thanks

jakeramsley

peter_hall said:

Just tried out the mates limits on sliding mates. Good improvement although positive dimensions only so will need to take care where and which way the mate is on design to make minimum 0mm and maximum +???mm to make it work correctly. Will try the other mates but certainly gives the basis for good motion models. I had an earlier discussion on this with @3dcad  , improvements could be made using the mate connectors to limit movements. 

Can you clarify this?  For me, limits accept both positive and negative values.  If there is a case that it isn't currently working with, we can log a ticket and investigate.

nav

Hi @jakeramsley just submitted a ticked with this issue as soon as you input a negative value in the Limits field it turns red.

jakeramsley

@nav,
The issue with that is you have the maximum angle less than the minimum angle.  0° ≤ θ ≤ -45° is an unsolvable equation.

edit:
My mistake.  I forgot there is a current limitation with handling negative angles in limiting revolutions.

nav

@jakeramsley this forum tool you use guys is amazing, I quoted your text and while I was writing you an answer it got updated with your edit, thanks for clarifying.

andrew_troup

For me, slider mates are working even between two negative values, provided the first value is more negative than the second...

and reset works as I think it should: it repositions to the least negative value.

(Reset is GREAT in combination with limit mates. BTW, giving easy toggling between three defined positions. Fabelhaft!)

But negative values seem to instantly raise a red flag in angular mate fields wherever I've tried them, regardless of which field, and what the other field contains, as @nav reports.

Naturally there are workarounds, involving reorienting the secondary axis so both values can be non-negative, but it would sometimes be nice to have the flexibility to work both sides of zero ...

malay_kumar

But negative values seem to instantly raise a red flag in angular mate fields wherever I've tried them, regardless of which field, and what the other field contains, as @nav reports.

Naturally there are workarounds, involving reorienting the secondary axis so both values can be non-negative, but it would sometimes be nice to have the flexibility to work both sides of zero ...

@andrew_troup The rotation limit allows 0 to 360. That should provide one to set at any position without reorienting secondary axis. In ideal scenario we should be allowed to set it to any value between -infinity to +infinity i.e. even past -pi and +2pi etc but values over 2pi will be difficult to track and not that useful unless it is involved in rack and pinion kind of relation in which case one could apply equivalent limit on slider.

andrew_troup

@malay_kumar

Certainly that allows setting any one position without reorienting the secondary axis, but I don't see that it permits setting two arbitrary limits, especially when there are two possible directions between any two angular limits which are not at 180 degrees (the 'short way' vs the 'long way')  

Linear limit mates currently allow the setting of three positions (as I mentioned above, this is fantastic)

So it seems to me very limiting if angular mates can only work to one side of the nominal position, and it means only one or at most two positions can be meaningfully defined.

I don't see any merit in going past + or - 360 degrees, so I'm not sure that's a relevant issue?

malay_kumar

andrew_troup  The angle measurement is consistently from second to first so one could also workaround it by reordering the mate connector list and adjusting angle. We will look into supporting this in a better way. 

imagineered

Since there has been some discussion on materials & properties, is there any plan to include a basic FEA analysis? 
Without this ability, much of the detail being discussed re materials, I would have though irrelevant.

traveler_hauptman

@imagineered you can see a list of the publicly disclosed partners.

moengineering

Wow, great work Onshape!

Best regards
Martin