Product Studios!

daniel_poulter

Hi,

I have been using Onshape to design a product and have done the majority of the work in the Part studio, however my product includes a number of external components which i call in from step models. For this I use the Assembly to add in my external components. My product however moulds around the external components, so my current workflow is to change the parts in the part studio until it looks correct in the assembly, which is not ideal as im not actually referencing the imported geometry......

Now, I COULD import the step model, use "Derived parts" to add to the part studio and then use "Transform" to place the part in the correct location (by moving it in x and y etc), then reference my components to this. Now this works, but it is rubbish compared to using the mate in the assembly mode to place the external component (much easier).

What i would like is a "Product Studio". This is the same as a part studio, except it has two modes  a "Drawing" mode and an "Assembly" mode and I switch between these modes with a tool on the toolbar. In "Drawing mode" it is exactly as the part studio is now, I then get an external part imported and then switch to assembly mode so i can use the wonderful mates tools to place parts with ease! I then switch back to "drawing mode" and draw my product around the imported parts. If this were the case, I would never need a separate assembley/parts workflow.

The other way this could be made to work would be a back annotate/forward changes workflow between parts studios and assemblies, similar to PCB design. I could draw a part (say a PCB), then in the assembly add loads of nuts and bolts from external step models, then use "forward to part studio" to place all those parts in the part studio in their mated locations, then i can draw around them.

What do other people think? Am i just doing it wrong!? 

 

andrew_troup

Just a thought in haste: (don't have time to respond to your actual query)

It would help not to talk of modelling as "drawing": it will confuse others and eventually yourself.
Drawing is the process of producing a 2D representation of a 3D object. 
I think the word you want is "Modelling"

3dcad

I would prefer to have only one workspace for modeling, assembly and documentation - I don't see the benefit of jumping between modules, just change the toolbars / viewmode / background according to current work. I don't understand who invented the system to switch between different modes and inserting / importing stuff that was just created with that same program.

In text editor (Word), you don't need to switch to image mode or draw mode if you wan't to add something to your text; you just have another toolbar to control the image or draw etc..

If I have modeled a car in part studio and then I look and turn the model and think that I'd like to open the drivers door - I should be able to do that without moving to assembly mode and starting from empty screen again.

I would also like to see dimension tool as part of assembly mating tools.

I remember @billy had similar thoughts earlier in another thread ( https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/5489#Comment_5489 )

It would be nice to hear Onshape's point of view on this matter @lougallo @jakeramsley @stevehess @abefeldman @jon_hirschtick(just to bump a few)

andrew_troup

I disagree with you and @billy on the particular point you raise in your first paragraph, @3dcad, but I won't restate my objections here, because I've probably already said everything I can think of in other threads on the topic.

philip_thomas

@daniel_poulter - thank you for your support of Onshape and for your suggestion. We all read these and consider each one. 
With regards to this particular suggestion, the main challenge becomes one of history.
The product studio would have to have only 1 featurelist because each of those switches between modeling and assembling would have to be chronologically recorded so that we knew to model something, then insert something, then mate something, then model something. 
That said, you do have that capability now as you point out (using Transform). Your criticism was that there weren't 'mating tools'. Fair enough. The good news is that we will be expanding the capabilities of Transform to enable you to both orient and position parts in 1 operation. This is probably as much as we would need for now until we better understand the needs of the users. Please keep the suggestions coming and know that we are constantly asking ourselves how we can make this better. Thank you.

3dcad

@philip_thomas
Could we have more than one feature list? Keep the 'frame' as it is now but just switch the mode in background when I select mate instead of extrude? Has there been any serious attempts (in any cad company) for trying to narrow down the amount of different workspaces (part, sheetmetal, assembly, drawing, bom)? 

andrew_troup

Mating is not just easier as the OP points out, more crucially, it is at least partially future-proof (to model changes) in a way that Transform can never be.

billy2

Back to Daniel's point, this is a flaw that's hopefully being fixed. All current parametric modelers left out the concept of an engineering layout and we've all been suffering from this omission. Here at OS, we have a chance to correct this error and I believe we will. If OS tackles this issue, they will be the dominate CAD player in the industry and we won't have to sell it based on cloud computing, instead, we could just say its a tool that works. "Solids that Work".

All current parametric modelers can document a machine that's sitting on shop floor by creating the individual parts and sticking them into an assembly. But this isn't design. How do you construct from a concept or napkin sketch?

I feel your pain Daniel,

billy2

Phillip-

Transformations need references to existing geometry. Currently, keying in these values just doesn't work. I'm holding my breathe and waiting patiently. I scan every release looking for this fix. Waiting, waiting, waiting........

philip_thomas

billy said:

Phillip-

Transformations need references to existing geometry. Currently, keying in these values just doesn't work. I'm holding my breathe and waiting patiently. I scan every release looking for this fix. Waiting, waiting, waiting........

Billy - this is coming VERY soon (i am already using it and it's AWESOME )

pete_yodis

@philip_thomas When is Now, Now!   Sorry, sorry... I couldn't resist.

philip_thomas

pete_yodis said:

@philip_thomas When is Now, Now!   Sorry, sorry... I couldn't resist.

#Spaceballs

bennyrowland

In my mind the difference between assembly and part studio has always been one of dynamic vs static. In an assembly things can rotate, slide etc. I can't imagine that anybody wants to model geometry that changes as a part rotates, unless you are designing using a very elastic material. On the other hand, being able to e.g. align screw holes between a derived part and the part being modelled would be way easier with fastened mates than the current transform based system, and would update with geometry changes as well. I wonder if the fastened mate is somehow a special case compared to other mates because it is the only one which has no DoFs.
So far most people seem to be using OnShape with existing models, either modelling real world objects or reimplementing their models from existing CAD programs to compare. As people start to use it more for original design work I think questions like this are going to become more important.

andrew_troup

bennyrowland said:

........ I wonder if the fastened mate is somehow a special case compared to other mates because it is the only one which has no DoFs.
................

You raise an interesting point: As things stand, it's potentially confusing to refer to it as an Onshape mate

But I think the problem is rooted much deeper.
To me, it is hard to understand wny Onshape chose to call the rest of that particular toolkit "mates" in the first place, because they operate so differently in Onshape from mates in other MCAD modellers.

It's also puzzling to me why the opposite policy was chosen by Onshape in regard to what SW calls "relations".
Although Onshape has almost exactly the same toolset, it chose a different name: "constraints"

I personally think it would have been better to reserve the latter term for what Onshape is calling "mates", because (in addition to avoiding confusion with existing usage) it is a better description of what they do.

And the term "relations" could have been retained for the toolset which operates within sketches, saving users having to learn a new word for an established concept.
 
The "Fasten Mate" in Onshape could then be called exactly that: a mate, because it is (currently) the only one which works in a way which is consistent with how mates work in other packages  

Given that we're still in beta, I think it's not too late to revisit this, and perhaps the confusion could be usefully resolved.

Another naming point: it seems to me that retaining the term "Assembly" invites confusion with other packages, because a Part Studio in Onshape covers the static cases Assemblies are used for in other modellers.

How do  other beta users see these questions? And why did Onshape choose the names we have?

bennyrowland

As a newcomer to the world of high-end CAD I have no possibility of being confused by changing terms, although I do appreciate the problems this can cause. "Constraints" within sketches immediately made sense to me and fits my internal picture of interacting with the sketch: I am constraining a point to lie on a line, or a line to be tangent to a circle. It is slightly more difficult to assemble the same phrases naturally using "relation": I am defining a relation between this point and this line where the point lies on the line. Someone else may be able to provide a better sentence, and I appreciate that the concept is exactly the same underneath, but names that can be easily articulated are more likely to fit well into a workflow.

Matthew

I know I am a bit late to this but agree with @daniel_poulter about being able to model parts around an assembly.  I am accustomed to doing just that in the other packages I have used in the past whether it is SW or Alibre.  I would start the process with my base parts and then create an assembly.  Then within this assembly I could either edit a part or even create a new part, such that I could reference the required geometry from other parts in the assembly.  This makes for fast design work, I can then if needed go to the individual part for more refined modeling or for placing fillets, drafts, parting lines etc.  As someone who has made the switch 100% from traditional MCAD to OS I can say that I am missing that ability.  Don't get me wrong, as I have begun to change my modeling strategy to match the OS features I am seeing benefit and an increase in the speed at which not only part modeling is occurring but also the speed that assemblies are being created.  As an automation integrator the majority of the parts that are in our models are not of our own design but rather are from either the customer or the vendor and so we find ourselves working a lot in assembly mode, it would be very nice to be able to work on individual parts on the assembly without leaving the assembly tab.