Standard content request

Adam_Micha

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!

n_schoemaeker

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.

GWS50

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_schoemaeker

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_howard360

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_zeagler204

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?

S1mon

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_pesty

james_howard360 said:

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...

michael3424

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.

EvanReese

+1 for McMaster integration.

bryan_lagrange

+1 for Mcmaster Carr

MichaelPascoe

+1 McMC

michael_zeagler204

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_papageorge_dayjob

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.

S1mon

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.

digitalcarbon

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.

wout_theelen541

digtalcarbon said:

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.

I definitely second this wiki approach. One company is responsible for maintaining the platform and users themselves create the content. OnShape themselves can't handle all the standard content it's just too many parts and isn't part of their core business. I am also against the idea of having something like just a McMaster catalog as it locks you into them and their suppliers and it's especially difficult if you're not in North America. I think having a way for users to pool their resources and model parts natively seems like the right approach then all the parts can be clean and properly configurable. How to organize this to make it scalable and maintain standards however is another ball game.

michael_zeagler

McMaster could integrate all their parts in a custom feature. It probably wouldn't even take a ton of work.

Alternatively they could just dump their models onto a public account without spending a dime on a license. That's not standard content though. 

I'm much more interested in the implementation of more ANSI and ISO standards, as well as possibly NAS and MIL standards, although some of those are being superseded by the aforementioned bodies these days, or are long abandoned.

Those may be a bit of work, but I'm curious as to how Onshape handles configurations in static references. Solidworks loads the entire file into memory with all configs so that you shoot yourself in the foot with a table for a large enough family of fasteners. A wiki for something like esoteric standard content might work really well if something like that is implemented in Onshape in a way that it's feasible to just set up a single model and populate by table.

bill_schnoebelen

Mcmaster translater

https://goatheads.circuitcase.com/