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.
RANDOM ONSHAPE USER CHALLENGE #1 : CITATIONS & LINK TO SUBMISSIONS
andrew_troup
Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
refer: https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/1955/random-onshape-user-challenge-1-cropped-depiction-of-a-cylindrical-component
Citations:
1) Simplest geometry creation:
Choosing from the models which came close to resembling the specified shape,
the simplest geometry creation of the cut face was by Matthew Menard and Joris Kofman
2) Most
unexpected concept:
Matthew Menard's use, in his second model, of cascading variables to permit the user to vary the granular increments of the chamfer rounding at will.
3) Most
elegant implementation:
Bruce Bartlett's construction for the circular arc used to generate the cut face (which I document in the tab "Nifty Construction example")
4) Fewest
features:
(as counted at the top of Part Studio feature list):
Mohan (Narayan K) submitted the lowest feature count (9).
One of his half shafts closely resembles the specified shape, but the other does not.
(It does, however, exactly fit the first half – so it almost, but not quite, complies with the "follow up challenge" spec)
Bruce B's first model had a feature count of 10, but both his half shafts closely resembled the shape specified.
I reckon that's a dead heat.
Because both these models were not presented (in a standard view) to match the orientation of the sample, their feature count should be increased by one for fair comparison with other models where an extra feature was required to reorient to match.
Extra Citations:
5) Closest resemblance to specified Cut Face shape:
Matthew Menard. All other 'bow ties' were narrower. The circular arc method (used to generate all the cut faces which closely resembled the specified shape) creates a lopsided bow tie.
This is more evident in the wider instance, but it would have been unfair to count this against Matthew's model because it was inherent to the method used by the other potential claimants.
6) Cheekiest inclusion:
Bruce Bartlett's extra 1
- his method was interesting and unique, so I left it in, even though he'd used up
his two entries! 
He also won 'best sport' award for asking a leading question on the public forum (about rounding to a specified granular increment), after he'd submitted (more than !) his quota of models.
7) Best model not mentioned above:
A hard call – probably ShepRCS's – a solid, well
behaved effort in every respect
Model links:
Challenge #1 - User submissions – Inch units
Challenge #1 - User submissions – Metric
Onshape users will need to make copies of these documents to inspect them properly.
Refer the tab "Analysis of Models" re methodology, and response to change as a measure of design intent.
See also tab "Nifty Construction example"
NOTE: Both tabs appear only in the "Inch units" document (because it had fewer model tabs)