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.

Complex imported Circuit Boards: Performance Improvement Question

JollsJolls Member Posts: 47 PRO
Performance question:
I have imported this highly detailed model from GrabCAD: https://grabcad.com/library/arduino-uno-r3-1

Now, for use in Assemblies how do I get the best performance out of it? Do I:
1) Delete all non-essential resistors and such for representation and make an assembly out of it
2) Do nothing and just use it as is
3) Make composite of everything so it's one parametric blob
4) Delete non-essential resistors then make composite parametric blob

I don't know how Onshape handles complex stuff like this in Assemblies such that the large assembly isn't bogged down by high details such as this PCB.

Comments

  • JollsJolls Member Posts: 47 PRO
    Also, is there a performance difference between "closed" Composite where it erases all individual parts that compose the composite, or "non-closed" where all individual parts stay available.
  • bradley_saulnbradley_sauln Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 331
    I would recommend trying to reduce the part and detail count and leave it in a separate, linked document that you then insert into the assembly. Composite parts work but depending on the size of the pcb it can have its limits. 

    I typically use the fix pcb custom feature to cut down on the complexity (https://cad.onshape.com/documents/9a9b81d17d4b69e58ad9b0b0/v/c253688ad8add5efd222a709/e/3152191074466a8b45231663 I only care about bounding box conditions). 

    After I've done this I will export the result out as a Parasolid and reimport to get rid of the 'weight' of the import of the thousands of small parts while deleting the original import and part studio (remember, this is still in the document history if I need to get back to it). 

    The goal is to get rid of this from the PCB reference document because this import feature is where the real performance weight is located:





    Then you should be good to go!



    Engineer | Adventurer | Tinkerer
    Twitter: @bradleysauln


  • bradley_saulnbradley_sauln Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 331
    An arduino or raspberry pi are not large enough to be of real concern, however. So you should be fine to use a close composite on import to avoid any issues and make it easy to reference. A composite part will NOT fix any import issues such as a poor model that comes in as a surface. You would have to undo the composite and repair the import to have a solid to work off of.
    Engineer | Adventurer | Tinkerer
    Twitter: @bradleysauln


  • MachineShop_BradMachineShop_Brad Member Posts: 1
    I would recommend trying to reduce the part and detail count and leave it in a separate, linked document that you then insert into the assembly. Composite parts work but depending on the size of the pcb it can have its limits. 

    I typically use the fix pcb custom feature to cut down on the complexity (https://cad.onshape.com/documents/9a9b81d17d4b69e58ad9b0b0/v/c253688ad8add5efd222a709/e/3152191074466a8b45231663 I only care about bounding box conditions).

    After I've done this I will export the result out as a Parasolid and reimport to get rid of the 'weight' of the import of the thousands of small parts while deleting the original import and part studio (remember, this is still in the document history if I need to get back to it).


    The goal is to get rid of this from the PCB reference:








    Then you should be good to go! Let me know if you have any questions.
  • JollsJolls Member Posts: 47 PRO
    Interesting points. Thanks Brad. I like your idea of simplifying and exporting then reimport to make it as light weight as possible. I could see having a document where it retains the full CAD but sources another separate document with dummy-simplified imports.
Sign In or Register to comment.