Does Onshape permit notes to to document items on the feature tree?

fred_wild

Does Onshape permit notes to items on the feature tree?  Notes would be useful to document each step in the design.  Thank you.

EvanReese

Another issue with comments is they don't work with branching and merging.

One thing I've started doing where I want this kind of communication is just naming features with really long names. You can get up to 256 characters, which is enough for a short paragraph. If you mouse over it, you'll see the full name.

MichaelPascoe

There are ways to do this. 

The standard way is to use the comments tab, and tag the feature you want to add notes too. The problem with this is that the comments tab has to be open in order to see that there is a note attached to the feature.

Alternatively, you can create empty sketches that are not attached to any plane. Name them with whatever you like and they will stand out in the feature tree as red notes. The problem with this is that it is showing errors in your feature tree which could be confusing when you have real errors or if you have to release the document. The empty sketch could be attached to a plane, but then it won't stand out.

tim_hess

Instead of an empty sketch, could you just create an unused variable?

EvanReese

Another issue with comments is they don't work with branching and merging.

One thing I've started doing where I want this kind of communication is just naming features with really long names. You can get up to 256 characters, which is enough for a short paragraph. If you mouse over it, you'll see the full name.

billy2

I love this sketch declaration for a primary reference. Things that are organized are more fun to work on.

All projects should have primary references that other features reference and declaring them is so important.

I've found that a google doc describing the entire project structure is a better way to setup the standards used in assemblies, part studios & methods used to construct a project's data structure. It's important to keep all engineers together constructing an single engineering database structure. Declarations at the top of each level are important. Part studios having primary references and how they attach to higher levels should be declared somehow.

Most projects these days in industry are long lists of features and working on them is not fun or productive. I'm hoping this changes soon.



@fred_wild figuring this out will pay dividends in the future.



Here are my primary references used to create an organic shape:


This is my 4th version of this design and I've been using the same references allowing me to tighten the design with each design spin. 

tim_hess

I like the idea of grouping the reference planes into a composite part like that. 

Easy to show/hide them all and could even be aligned with an assembly or derived into another part studio!

MichaelPascoe

Not sure why I didn't think of mentioning folders. That would be great for notes + grouping.

billy2

Michael Payne said parametric modeling was all about referencing and I agree with his statement. Parametric modeling is about controlling long chains of dependencies and we need to figure out how to control them and document them. Parametric feature based modeling was created to allow predictable change and it's done with references.

I'm starting to sound like an old Pro/E brochure.


Assembly structures, how to use part studios, parts, folders, configurations & sketches; how are these going to be used to design something? Seems like it should be written down somewhere but it never is. Everyone agreeing to an approach would be nice, but it's usually everyman for himself.



@tim_hess please add curvature combs to that list of controlled references with composites. I toggled them on/off a 1,000 times when constructing my main surfaces.


curvature comb references:


When I'm designing I'm always thinking about the next guy who has to figure out what I was doing. Sometimes my design intent runs deep and trying to keep things understandable is a challenge. Building flexible models is the key to designing great products and running through 100's of design scenarios. It's not about how fast you can create a solid model, it's more about the change that'll come along.

I wish there were more discussions about controlling parametric feature based modeling.

fred_wild

I am a beginner, and I like the suggestion to rename a feature with its explanation.  It's simple, easy to access, and serves the purpose. Thank you.

billy2

@fred_wild

Great you're on the right track to becoming a powerful designer or probably a project manager.

I don't want to dissuade you from naming everything, more is better, but like @Evan_Reese did in his example, name the sketches that's what I do. Look below, 2 sketches and 17 features all contained in a folder called "tank detail".

1. How do I transfer the gas tank's details down to the rear light? A folder called "tank detail"
2. There are only 2 sketches driving the design: "tank detail" & "emblem"
3. Surprisingly there's a lot of features to make things happen and you can click on them to see what they're referencing



You're going to be real busy renaming features. I'm too lazy to do that when I can click on the feature and it'll highlight what it's doing. It's given name like "move boundary" along with highlighting it's references is good enough for me.

What we're talking about is your style and asking about what makes a good style puts you in the front row of your class.

You're going to become a great parametric modeler, keep trying.....