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.

Standard content request

Adam_MichaAdam_Micha Member Posts: 17 PRO
edited April 2021 in Product Feedback
Hi,

We really need to have a more complete standard content library. Since it is not possible to add content to the standard content library ourselves, we are relying on the built-in library to be complete.

First, we need faster implementation of requested standards.

Second, screw lengths should not be limited to presets; even millimeters (for us metric users) would be awesome, as suppliers usually offers lengths outside of the norm but otherwise adhering to the standard.

We are currently missing ISO 14581 badly.

Perhaps it would be an idea with a subforum for the improvment requests just to handle standard content requests?

Cheers!

Comments

  • n_schoemaekern_schoemaeker Member Posts: 28 PRO
    I'm seconding this *strongly*!
    I wanted to make a post about ISO 14581 badly, and found @Adam_Micha already requested this. I second this, this is essential!
    I so happen to use ISO 14581 *a lot* and currently I need to download 3D model from McMaster.

    So please please OnShape teams, add it!
    Also I agree: it would be awesome if you could be more reactive on Standard Content requests. I totally understand that feature request in general takes time to implement, but adding a Standard Content, should not be that hard. I'd even volunteer.

    Anyway, just a +1 for me.
  • GWS50GWS50 Member Posts: 275 PRO
    Yes agree. More content and user defined lengths. Some of the Socket Head bolt selections only go down to M3, can we have small options please?
    I'm constantly downloading screws and bearing from McMaster Carr.
  • n_schoemaekern_schoemaeker Member Posts: 28 PRO
    Yes...

    as for the user-specified length, I would be careful about how this is done. Here, since the lengths are per-determined and abide (albeit sometimes annoyingly) to the ISO (or equiv.) standard, I think it's rigorous.
    Yes, some manufacturer will produce screw lengths that out of standards, but not all. So I think OnShape made a good move to have the standard-specified lengths : this way you know you can source the parts basically everywhere.

    This has also another advantage (which I use extensively, so I really hope OnShape won't change this!): it allows to specify a Part Number and a Description for the screws. It took me a long time but now the screws (and bolts, and washers, etc.) have all normalized Part Numbers, which makes BoM export a breeze. If the per-determined lengths disappear and are replaced by a free user-entry, we'd likely lose this.

    But I also agree that sometimes it's a PITA not to have the desired length, so I'd suggest that OnShape keeps the per-determined lengths, but also allow user to specified a custom one. But I think it's important to keep the normalized-lengths visually different, so that we know.

    Anyway, this is my 2cts.
  • james_howard360james_howard360 Member Posts: 25 PRO
    Can we just gain the ability to easily generate and add our own libraries to show under standard content similar to Solidworks Toolbox?

    Or how about a McMaster catalog tab on the 'Insert' dialog, now that would be useful.

    I'm also pro custom-length. Sure, they should be indicated in some way, but I've often had fasteners made to standard except length, and there's no good reason to remodel all other features. 
  • michael_zeagler204michael_zeagler204 Member Posts: 8
    McMaster would probably have to make an add-in, which would honestly be super easy for them. They have an army of CAD people making models for their library. I've mentioned Onshape to McMaster reps in the past too but who knows?
  • S1monS1mon Member Posts: 1,239 PRO
    Both Fusion 360 and Solidworks have add-ins or menus for doing this. I wonder if there is some sort of exclusivity agreement(s) preventing this from happening with Onshape?

  • eric_pestyeric_pesty Member Posts: 708 PRO
    Can we just gain the ability to easily generate and add our own libraries to show under standard content similar to Solidworks Toolbox?

    Or how about a McMaster catalog tab on the 'Insert' dialog, now that would be useful.

    I'm also pro custom-length. Sure, they should be indicated in some way, but I've often had fasteners made to standard except length, and there's no good reason to remodel all other features. 
    A McMaster "app" would be nice for sure... Although I'm guessing it would be more of a McMaster than Onshape effort.

    An intermediate option that "should" be pretty simple to implement would be adding the option to "derive in" standard content, that would make it easy to create a semi-custom version of standard content (while retaining the link with the original...

  • michael3424michael3424 Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭
    Just a hobbyist here, but a McMaster-Carr add-in for standard parts would be really nice.  I use their 3D CAD files pretty often.

  • Evan_ReeseEvan_Reese Member Posts: 1,615 PRO
    +1 for McMaster integration.
    Evan Reese / Principal and Industrial Designer with Ovyl
    Website: ovyl.io
  • bryan_lagrangebryan_lagrange Member, User Group Leader Posts: 613 ✭✭✭✭✭
    +1 for Mcmaster Carr
    Bryan Lagrange
    Twitter: @BryanLAGdesign

  • MichaelPascoeMichaelPascoe Member Posts: 1,124 PRO
    edited December 2021
  • michael_zeagler204michael_zeagler204 Member Posts: 8
    Honestly guys, McMaster is probably the tree to bark up for this. They make the add-ins for the other CAD platforms, and Onshape would likely be even easier.
  • nick_papageorge073nick_papageorge073 Member Posts: 225 PRO
    I think navigating to McMaster directly in a separate browser is more foolproof. I used Fusion for a year for hobby stuff before buying Onshape at my dayjob, and found the integration with McMaster was weird. It would open a small browser window inside of the cad software. That browser window was worse than a standalone browser window as far as what you could do with it. Especially if you didn't know exactly what hardware you wanted.

    Besides that, the main point of hardware built into a CAD system is it is simplified without threads. If you simply link to McMaster, you will get the full, accurately modeled hardware, which defeats the whole purpose.
  • S1monS1mon Member Posts: 1,239 PRO
    It really depends on what you want the model for. Sometimes I’m very happy to see the threads. Either for visual reasons or to help think through the number of threads of engagement. I can certainly understand that for some models, threads are way too much detail.
  • digtalcarbondigtalcarbon Member Posts: 42 PRO
    What we really need is a way to have universal library docs that all can use vs downloading messy items from vendors.
    Sure I download from mmc and other places but I always end up cleaning up the part and placing in my vendor library...
    Somehow we need a wiki approach vs trying to have Onshape provide content...

    I took the time to make configs of all the NPT 2" sch40 pipe offered at MMC.  yes it took time but now I have it...& the whole company now had clean parts to work with. Also the BOMs are now clean....Seems like this work should be made available to all vs everyone else doing the same.

    Then there is the issue of bringing your model (with all the threads) into a larger model (shop floor for example) only to have things bog down...that is another reason why I keep my library clean & do not show threads.

    I have my threads shown in purple...maybe Onshape can have a texture that looks like the old way we use to draw simplified threads.






Sign In or Register to comment.