Transform Faces or Features

Javier_López_del_Pueyo

I'm using the Transform command within a Part Studio and I can only select entities such as bodies. Is it possible to select Faces or Features to which apply the transformation?

To me, that option seems way more convenient than applying the transform command to entities only. Specially in the context of a Part Studio.

S1mon

You can use Move face with the translate option.
https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/moveface.htm#:~:text=To%20move%20a%20face%2C%20select,distance%20to%20offset%20or%20translate.

Javier_López_del_Pueyo

Ok thanks. It is a pitty that transform can not be applied to features. Specially convenient for holes, patterns... 

I might add an IR based on that.

Cheers!

_anton

Easy way to copy a hole is with the Linear Pattern feature, which is more robust (if we stick to best practices) than the Transform feature.

nick_papageorge073

javl0p_2 said:

Ok thanks. It is a pitty that transform can not be applied to features. Specially convenient for holes, patterns... 

I might add an IR based on that.

Cheers!

Make the feature (or many groups of features) as "new" instead of "add". Then you can move it, pattern it, copy it, etc, at will. When finished, union it to the main body. This is a very common technique in many of the cad systems.

Javier_López_del_Pueyo

nick_papageorge073 said:

javl0p_2 said:

Ok thanks. It is a pitty that transform can not be applied to features. Specially convenient for holes, patterns... 

I might add an IR based on that.

Cheers!

Make the feature (or many groups of features) as "new" instead of "add". Then you can move it, pattern it, copy it, etc, at will. When finished, union it to the main body. This is a very common technique in many of the cad systems.

Nice workaround. Thanks!

billy2

Let's say you have an image on a part. Then, derive the part into another part and try to transform it into place. You can't move the image inside the new part because you can't transform it. 

Seems like the whole idea of part in part inheritance, you need to make transforms be more complete.

S1mon

Super derive will let you use parts and sketches from another studio wherever you want.

billy2

Image doesn't come over:

It's an image issue and not the sketch or the sketch is there but no image. I like the warning when you add 2 derived, "use an assembly".

Do you know what this means?

billy2

S1mon never mind, it's a new insertion point for the part you're bringing in. That's cool.

EvanReese

@javl0p_2 There is a custom Transform Pattern feature by @konstantin_shiriazdanov that can do this. 

Javier_López_del_Pueyo

Evan_Reese said:

@javl0p_2 There is a custom Transform Pattern feature by @konstantin_shiriazdanov that can do this. 

Beautiful! Thanks!!

billy2

Transform pattern is nice once you get the derived part inside your part. But it won't move sketches and other stuff like images.


What would make super derive "super" is to add a boolean subtraction to the importing derived part. Any body with the color red "FF0000" can be subtracted in the same feature.



Forever, people have been asking for this and I believe part in part (derived) is a great place to achieve this request. Inside super derive you could add an option to subtract, which in the case above would not only bring in the screw, but would include a hole for the screw. 

I'm not against part in part project structures, I'm just trying to justify them to myself. There are some good things about this workflow ie.. it always updates, but it is slow, featurescript works everywhere so you can achieve infinite control without relying on configurations. There are no BOM's for part studios, has anyone created a table for to generate a bom inside a part studio?

Javier_López_del_Pueyo

billy2, regarding BOMs within Part Studio, you can use Custom Tables and a bit a code to actually output a BOM like table.

Here's a link with a tutorial to customize it yourself.

https://www.onshape.com/en/resource-center/tech-tips/tech-tip-how-to-build-a-custom-table-using-featurescript

billy2

@javl0p_2

Thanks for the link, I was hoping someone else would do it. My current thinking is that every deliverable should be an assembly which has a BOM. Doing everything inside a studio has been debatable since day 1 of OS. No one inside the SW world designs multi-body inside a part although they could. 

There's a lot of people designing in a studio because it's easier, but it's got some issues.

I did spend yesterday reviewing the superderive & transferpattern FS code. Super derive is doing a lot more than I gave it credit for and makes me think differently about part in part (derive). With super derive you can actually derive features vs. parts. This means you could create an external library of PCB bosses, plastic tabs or any set of features that you use in a design. Also, you could create a library of cavities that could be super derived into your design creating standardized cavities in your design. The variables in super derive allow you to control reference id's for features created allowing you to attach your feature to a sketch and then controlling your design through a sketch. 

transferpattern is pretty cool and around 100 lines of code. It's interesting because you can specify vertices or MCs. Be careful using vertices because they don't have direction. 

last try in his stack handling vertices:

    try silent
    {
        const origin = evVertexPoint(context, { "vertex" : query });
        return coordSystem(origin, vector(1, 0, 0), vector(0, 0, 1));
    }

  
I do like the way he drops down trying to build coordinate systems, but vector(1,0,0) & vector(0,0,1) are world which forces everything along world Z. If you're going to use transferpattern, and I do, stick to using MCs vs. vertices unless everything in your life is aligned to Z.

After reviewing these 2 feature scripts closely, I don't think you can copy an image around making a part in part more attractive.


Here's my use case for designing in an assembly:


-I have a pcb studio to create a pcb part
-I add a pcb image to help me remember what the pcb part looks like
-I create an assembly of these 2 items so I don't have to deal with a part & image in the assembly
-I position one pcb in the assembly
-I then replicate it using a linear pattern in the assembly
-My BOM is correct