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.

In-context updates management

mattia_cestaromattia_cestaro Member Posts: 13
edited January 2021 in Community Support
Good day to every one :) ,

I am doing some design in order to learn how to use Onshape at the best. I am trying to figure out the best way to top-down design in big assemblies and I found a good compromise between design multi parts in a single part studio and in-context references. I have only one problem :# .




When I need to update a context I would like to update only the parts that I have in that context instead update and bring in the context all what I have showed in the assembly in that moment.

So here is my question, there is a way (I mean like a button) that allows me to update only the parts that I have in a context? 

Thank you in advance for the feed back  :) .

Best Answer

  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 1,779 PRO
    edited January 2021 Answer ✓
    I use hide/show a lot and it's probably not optimal. It's not bothering me though perhaps I'm getting use to it.

    This might not be the best example because it's a fairly simple assembly structure.

    I am using a lot of sub-assys in my designs. Probably more that most people would use. I don't like parts dangling around inside an assembly therefore I put everything from a part studio into an assembly before using the parts in higher level assemblies. I like them to be one line item in a higher level assembly and I want them to stay grouped as a unit. It's easier to manager part studio stuff if it goes through an assembly first. The light housing assembly is the same geometry as light housing part, it's inserted via assy coordinates, and it's grouped. To me it's easier managing a light housing assembly than a light housing part studio. 

    And then there's incontext. I've established a context between my top assembly and the light housing part studio and I'm forcing myself to have only that one context.

    Since my assembly structures are getting really deep due to all the assemblies I'm using, I can have multiple contexts in a partstudio but usually they're to other sub-assys. So, I end up with a context from every assembly I'm pulling references from. I refrain from one assembly and multiple contexts to one partstudio. It became confusing to remember the contexts and you have to understand what primary context is all about. I didn't like the way it worked.

    The other thing that's important to me is to drive the design from the top level assembly. I add the top assembly to my website and through configurations I can flex the design with BOMs & geometry updating correctly. Getting configurations to run up from the partstudio to the top assembly is painful. There are tricks to make these assignments easier to assign. Like most CAD systems, all sub-assemblies must have the configurations assigned in order to connect the bottom partstudio to the top assembly. There's a chain of assignments through each sub-assy and the deeper your structure, it's more work.

    This might not be the best example, but you can see how I'm spreading the design out amongst multiple assemblies and part studios.

    In the beginning I tried to make incontest work between one assembly & one partstudio. Assemblies & partstudios are free use more as Philip use to say. I think breaking it up might be the best strategy for success. 

    I haven't found nirvana yet and I'm still working on it.  





Answers

  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 1,779 PRO
    Somethings not right here. Onshape will only update one context at a time by design. If you've figured out how to update all contexts I'd like to know your secret.

    Please share your document, I'd like to see what you're up to.


  • NeilCookeNeilCooke Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 4,236
    If all your parts are in the same part studio then no. Updating a context regenerates the entire part studio and all the parts in it. 
    Director, Technical Services, EMEAI
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 1,779 PRO
    What if you have 2 contexts tied to a single partstudio?
  • mattia_cestaromattia_cestaro Member Posts: 13
    I have multiple context in a single part studio because I need to show only few parts in one context in order to be able to pick up the reference that I need in that moment.

    I found very useful to organize my contexts keeping just one part of the entire assembly for each context in order to use it when I need to reference something to that part.

    The problem comes when I update them because I would like to update a context keeping only the parts that I have in it.
    So I am looking for an easy way that allows me to do that.

    I hope that I have clarified what I am looking for with this comment :wink:
  • konstantin_shiriazdanovkonstantin_shiriazdanov Member Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021
    That's a good point, when you create context with several parts from assembly and then update it from within part studio you have no control which assembly parts should and should not be included, it only depends on the hide/show state of parts in assembly at the moment. I also think that optimal behavior would be to update only already existing context parts when you updating from part studio.
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 1,779 PRO
    edited January 2021 Answer ✓
    I use hide/show a lot and it's probably not optimal. It's not bothering me though perhaps I'm getting use to it.

    This might not be the best example because it's a fairly simple assembly structure.

    I am using a lot of sub-assys in my designs. Probably more that most people would use. I don't like parts dangling around inside an assembly therefore I put everything from a part studio into an assembly before using the parts in higher level assemblies. I like them to be one line item in a higher level assembly and I want them to stay grouped as a unit. It's easier to manager part studio stuff if it goes through an assembly first. The light housing assembly is the same geometry as light housing part, it's inserted via assy coordinates, and it's grouped. To me it's easier managing a light housing assembly than a light housing part studio. 

    And then there's incontext. I've established a context between my top assembly and the light housing part studio and I'm forcing myself to have only that one context.

    Since my assembly structures are getting really deep due to all the assemblies I'm using, I can have multiple contexts in a partstudio but usually they're to other sub-assys. So, I end up with a context from every assembly I'm pulling references from. I refrain from one assembly and multiple contexts to one partstudio. It became confusing to remember the contexts and you have to understand what primary context is all about. I didn't like the way it worked.

    The other thing that's important to me is to drive the design from the top level assembly. I add the top assembly to my website and through configurations I can flex the design with BOMs & geometry updating correctly. Getting configurations to run up from the partstudio to the top assembly is painful. There are tricks to make these assignments easier to assign. Like most CAD systems, all sub-assemblies must have the configurations assigned in order to connect the bottom partstudio to the top assembly. There's a chain of assignments through each sub-assy and the deeper your structure, it's more work.

    This might not be the best example, but you can see how I'm spreading the design out amongst multiple assemblies and part studios.

    In the beginning I tried to make incontest work between one assembly & one partstudio. Assemblies & partstudios are free use more as Philip use to say. I think breaking it up might be the best strategy for success. 

    I haven't found nirvana yet and I'm still working on it.  





  • mattia_cestaromattia_cestaro Member Posts: 13
    I resolved this issue with a better organization of the assemblies and sub-assemblies and keeping just one context for each of them.

    I am still not completely satisfied with my workflow in onshape but I am studing it and I think that it has a lot of potential.
    I only need to organize my work a little better.

    Anyway thanks to everyone for the feedback :smile: !
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 1,779 PRO
    I feel the same way and have been using OS for a long time. 

    OS is more competent with project structures than any other CAD, but I think many of us are still trying to figure it out and master it.


  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 1,779 PRO
    edited January 2021
    Mattia please PM me your signin email and I'll share some of my top levels with you.

    I typically have a few assemblies on the bottom tap row and a lot of folders. I will put the major layout partstudio on the bottom row for quick access. Parts & partstudio are shoved in a folder and I don't manage them.

    For a project I typically navigate around from the top assembly. The top assembly should the entry point into any project. I'm always RMB and switching from this to that. Your top assembly was at the right of the tabs, but I had to slide to the beginning to get there.

    My biggest problem is that 50% of my design is downloaded and I'm not going to put them into a partstudio. A simple assembly is my main workspace and I import downloaded parts/assemblies into this workspace. I do have a layout partstudio where I design parts that are inter-related. I put them in their own assy and import that into my main workspace. I'm using in context to see everything in my design. I don't create in context references that often, only when necessary. I think one of the major problems with in context is that people think you need to create assy references to be using in context. In context means you're designing with an assembly not that you're creating references in an assembly. Most people fail because they have too many references to an assembly. These references are not well thought out and impossible to maintain.

    You're designing spacers and everything hardware and I'm downloading from misumi & mcmaster. I download a lot of stuff and maintain a library so I don't have to download twice. I spend the time getting assemblies to work and populate the properties as well as part costs. I don't know why we can't download stuff with this already populated. We have a long ways to go.

    Once again, I'm designing in an assembly which I believe is the proper way to use a parametric feature based modeler. I usually have a layout for parts I design. Not everything I design is in one partstudio and break it up based on parts related to one another.

    Your assembly is nicely done, it works. We're not that far apart.

    Thanks for sharing.


  • mattia_cestaromattia_cestaro Member Posts: 13
    I agree billy2. I use another CAD in my profession, I don't want to say wich one because I don't want to start a CAD war  :#
    I am an expert with that cad, I used it 40hr/week for few years now, but I think that if tomorrow I should open my own company, Onshape would be my choise. Considered also the price of course :p
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 1,779 PRO
    I've stopped using all others. It's too painful keeping them running. 
  • mattia_cestaromattia_cestaro Member Posts: 13
    You are welcome  billy,

    I found your description of your approach at a large project very usefull, I will definetly keep it in mind for my future projects and I will continue studing  ;)

    Here is my login e-mail:
    [email protected]

    Thank you for your feedback!
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 1,779 PRO
    I sent you a link to a motorcycle part which isn't a traditional project structure. There's a lot of stuff coming in from all over the place.

    Take a look at the branch & version graph, OS can manage configuration which most other CAD systems struggle with.

    This project is heavily weighted with configurations. I'll post it on my website and you can see what happens.

    Let me know if you can follow the structure, some times I'm worried that it's too complex. I believe that if others can't follow, then it's no good.

    So this is my opinion, NX, Catia, Creo, SolidWorks, Inventor..... none of these systems come close to Onshape. The cloud is that good and OS is great cloud program. If you keep playing with it, you'll soon agree. I'm not a salesmen, I'm a user.

    Share more projects with me, I enjoy seeing how people put things together. Take your gear reducer and add it to some automation.


Sign In or Register to comment.