merging parts studios?

david_lang457

I've got some parts that I started designing in different parts studios, but started to find that I'm referencing the same configuration variables, so it would make sense to combine them into one parts studio, is there a way to do this?

I also have a case where I've got one document that creates a design (essentially 3d printed linear bearings) and then I want to pull that work into another document to use as a base to add features to (with the result being a single part) is there a way to do this?

wout_theelen541

Your second question about pulling in a document is simple. Use derived.
The first question is tricky as there is no way to really do that effeciently. You could also use derived for this especially if some parts are more or less fixed and you know you want to use them across different projects. If you want to copy and paste whole part studios into one another though you might be out of luck, the best you can do is copy and paste sketches across part studios.

MichaelPascoe

Have you looked into Variable Studio's? You can use them across documents.

S1mon

I've done the opposite - I've split part studios where a bunch of features created some parts that were mostly independent. I made a copy of the part studio and deleted the newer features from the original part studio and then deleted the earlier features from the copied part studio. I needed to add a derive feature to add in a couple of reference sketches from the first studio into the copy, and do some reference fixing, but it worked pretty well.

In general, it would be nice to have built in support for combining and splitting part studios. It's pretty typical in my experience to start with one master model part studio, and realize that it's getting too complex and should be split up. It's also the case that it should be easier to merge things than it is now.

Right now you can copy and paste sketches between part studios, but that's about it. It would be great if we could copy and paste features. If they depended on other features (other than the default planes and origin) then there would be an option to derive those references.

david_lang457

In my case I realized after a bunch of work how much overlap there was between the parts studios. If I had to start over I would have done them in one studio.

can the variable studio include configuration options? or just lists of variables?

jonatan

I’m wondering the same, new to onshape and I’m not able to find a way to do this

david_lang457

david_lang457 said:

can the variable studio include configuration options? or just lists of variables?

It appears that it cannot,

Toshimichi_Oda

I mostly agree with S1mon.

Document has more and more tabs, so I try to decrease them because simple is best.

A document creator often want to keep all of his created tabs in the current document. (Because they are his greatest works.)

But new shared or rarely-visited persons are difficult to find needed tabs from the many .

I have come close to mistaken the same or similar named tab for wanted tab several times.

I think it's a good idea to move unrelated tabs to another document.

If one of two tabs is changed and the other tab has no change accordingly, I think the tabs may be moved to another documents.

And also it is good to put away nearly-unchanged tabs in a past version and it can be referenced from other tabs in the current workspace or other documents.

When we want that tabs have differet share-settings, we need to put them in separate documents because tabs in a document have the same share-setting.

I'm always thinking  which is the best that the different models share a variable, sketches including the variable,  features using the sketches, solids in progress, or completed solid.

I think Onshape has a solution for each case.

wout_theelen541

S1mon said:

I've done the opposite - I've split part studios where a bunch of features created some parts that were mostly independent. I made a copy of the part studio and deleted the newer features from the original part studio and then deleted the earlier features from the copied part studio. I needed to add a derive feature to add in a couple of reference sketches from the first studio into the copy, and do some reference fixing, but it worked pretty well.

In general, it would be nice to have built in support for combining and splitting part studios. It's pretty typical in my experience to start with one master model part studio, and realize that it's getting too complex and should be split up. It's also the case that it should be easier to merge things than it is now.

Right now you can copy and paste sketches between part studios, but that's about it. It would be great if we could copy and paste features. If they depended on other features (other than the default planes and origin) then there would be an option to derive those references.

I'm wondering if you ever used in context studios here? I just split a part studio in half and did that but it was an odd workflow. All the parts from the first half of the original part went to part studio 1 and were assembled in subassembly 1 and the second half in part studio 2 and assembled in subassembly 2. To get the in context references to work I put a part from part studio 2 in subassembly 1 and create the required references then deleted the part. It's not a great workflow but the best that I could think of. I was thinking if you could make an in context reference to an unrelated assembly this would make things a bit easier

S1mon

@wout_theelen541

I've used in-context sometimes. Even though in-context in Onshape is worlds better than the equivalent in Solidworks or Creo, it still feels like more overhead than necessary for many situations. In my world, typically early in the project there is an industrial design CAD model which is mostly the exterior and it's designed in a single part studio. As this evolves into a production mechanical design database, parts and subassemblies get split out one way or another. Derive works well for this.

In-context makes more sense to me when I have a more bottom-up project approach, but I need to make some parts which relate to some subassemblies or other parts in an assembly. Onshape's in-context is also amazing when there are several positions of related parts (i.e. more than one context), and the part you're trying to design needs to deal with these different positions. I just don't do things like that very much.