Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- 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.
Replicate is broken
n_schoemaeker
Member Posts: 28 PRO
Hi everyone,
I have been having an issue with a recent OnShape update (I am pretty sure this used to work). It's definitely not from the latest update, but from a few months ago.
I never took the time to report it, now I do.
It has to do with how "Replicate" works now, and I think its usefulness has been greatly reduced. Basically, now, a part that is Replicated can only have only one mate applied to it (the mate that is concerned with the Replicate).
If some part is Replicated several times in an Assembly, it's okay. But the moment we need to mate another part to it, it breaks the replicate and this is very limiting and frustrating (IMO).
I've made a document example to showcase this: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/08d8e0c02b60c481e028b021/w/2938dc90dec5b40f4b175d77/e/ee64011f2c9b53e20d7ab4a0?configuration=default&renderMode=0&uiState=61b1d3bc2ce2757a75741905
- I have my base part "Test Part" which has 4 screw holes in it which I import in my main Assembly
- I then add a washer to the first hole, on the top-left corner, through Standard Content. This creates a Fastened Mate that I have renamed "Washer" in the Mate Features
- I then use Replicate on the Washer and select the Test Part's top face => 3 new Washers appear on the other 3 holes as intended. I renamed the Replicate feature "Replicate Washers"
- Then by clicking the Configuration Checkbox "Add & Mate Screw" it adds a Standard Content screw on that initial Washer. But at that point, the Replicate Washer gets broken.
It used to display an error message saying only one mate was allowed or something like that, now it displays "One or More seed parts are not mated to other supported geometry"
This is a big problem because Replicate can be useful for a lot of things, not necessarily screws. And I regularly have "sandwich" parts that I replicate and need to add some other mates too, and this is not possible anymore (I think it used to work).
Note: the document I linked is a test document, to showcase the issue, I know that in this trivial case, I have several options to fix it :
- I can add the washer and the screw, and *then* replicate the pair. It works perfectly for those use-cases (I sometimes use it indeed). But this is limited: sometimes you add all those washers, but you have several different screw lengths, so you can't just use that "one replicate".
- other possibility is not to use Replicate at all, but add all instances with the Standard Content: this would also work, but I prefer not to use that, because when I have to make adjustments (like change the length of the screws), it's easier to have one seed part, then replicated because that way you change the seed part and it works. (I know there is the option to "replace all instances", but that won't do it either, because sometimes you have the same reference screw placed elsewhere whose length you don't want to change).
- I could also use linear pattern, etc.
Anyway this is just a test document, made to show how replicate is, IMO, broken.
Is this something that others have faced? Can it be worked on by the OnShape dev team?
Tagged:
0
Comments
Can you replicate the washer and then replicate the screw in a second step?
Reading your original post again - I would guess that your first workaround (replicate the pair) is how I've done this type of thing in the past and is probably the recommended workflow the justifies this feature as working correctly (i.e. not a bug).
So, I don't think I personally would call this broken, but your use-case does seem like a reasonable improvement.