Changing configuration of individual parts in an assembly linear pattern?

maciej_mazur

Hi i have a made a PART which uses configuration variables in part studio. I want to insert that part into an assembly and pattern out an array of say 5 x 5 copies of PART. I then want to change the configuration of each of the instances of PART in the assembly to be different? this is basic stuff in SolidWorks but does not appear to be possible in OnShape. Is there a way to do this?
Or is the only solution to create 5*5 copies of my PART as separate part studios, then import all the 25 parts into an assembly? Thanks

eric_pesty

Unfortunately, you can't currently configure individual instances of a pattern in assembly, which is annoying...
However you don't have to copy the part studio, you just have to insert separate instances of your part and the configurations separately. You could also create a "helper" surface/sketch to insert in the assembly with your pattern locations (i.e. a grid of circles) and then use the "snap mode" when inserting to quickly insert and mate the 25 instances. You would then be able to set the configurations of each one independently.

Depending what you are trying to do, you might also be able to derive your part in a separate part studio and use variables to drive the configuration variables the configuration of your derived parts. You could then insert all these parts at once in your assembly either as a rigid part studio or a as a composite part.

maciej_mazur

Thank you very much for the reply. I have managed to do what you suggested in your first paragraph and inserted new instances of parts into the assembly and then configured them individually (annoyingly there does not appear to be a way to rename each part in the assembly without having the name change for all of them, instead I have put each part in a uniquely named folder in the assembly history tree). 

With regards to the suggestion in your second paragraph, I am not sure I follow. Are you suggesting I can control "configuration variables" with another level of variable? to me it seems configuration variables appear to be the highest level and cannot be themselves parametrised. 

What I would like to do is to be able to set 4 configuration variables to certain values say A=1,B=2,C=3,D=4 and then save that as a defined part configuration (say config "thick", another premutation of A-D values would be called "thin"). Then I would like to have a list of these part configurations I can quickly change from "thick" to "thin" without having to change each value of A-D manually. This does not appear to be possible if you are using configuration variables. It is possible if use standard part studio variables (not configuration variables) however when I create my list input table of configuration, to add variables I have to manually click on every dimension I defined in ever sketch which is quite tedious. I also defined some variables as functions of others, and expressions do not seems supported in the configuration list table. I am not sure if am missing something, but it seems like the configurations features in OS are quite convoluted and limited compared to SolidWorks (not to suggest I prefer SW, I switched to OS due to frustration with how unstable and slow SW is). 

rafael_telgmann

@maciej_mazur:
You can specify the name of the part in the "configured part properties". 

eric_pesty

maciej_mazur said:

Thank you very much for the reply. I have managed to do what you suggested in your first paragraph and inserted new instances of parts into the assembly and then configured them individually (annoyingly there does not appear to be a way to rename each part in the assembly without having the name change for all of them, instead I have put each part in a uniquely named folder in the assembly history tree). 

With regards to the suggestion in your second paragraph, I am not sure I follow. Are you suggesting I can control "configuration variables" with another level of variable? to me it seems configuration variables appear to be the highest level and cannot be themselves parametrised. 

What I would like to do is to be able to set 4 configuration variables to certain values say A=1,B=2,C=3,D=4 and then save that as a defined part configuration (say config "thick", another premutation of A-D values would be called "thin"). Then I would like to have a list of these part configurations I can quickly change from "thick" to "thin" without having to change each value of A-D manually. This does not appear to be possible if you are using configuration variables. It is possible if use standard part studio variables (not configuration variables) however when I create my list input table of configuration, to add variables I have to manually click on every dimension I defined in ever sketch which is quite tedious. I also defined some variables as functions of others, and expressions do not seems supported in the configuration list table. I am not sure if am missing something, but it seems like the configurations features in OS are quite convoluted and limited compared to SolidWorks (not to suggest I prefer SW, I switched to OS due to frustration with how unstable and slow SW is). 

For part names, the easiest option would be to open up the BOM table from your assembly and every separate configuration of the part will be listed as its own row, and you can rename them directly from the assembly level (it creates an entry in the "configured properties" of the part studio when you do this).

To do the "other level", create a new part studio and derive your part into it, then create your desired drop down list of configurations and set the config variables for the derived parts in there. You can set all of them or still have some config variables if you still want to have something "infinitely" configurable.

See the different tabs in here: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/d2d3382aa18189471db96624/w/bfdb4819bc7e743e462a92ad/e/671f31135deee56ac9da53da?configuration=List_CfK1kQIjtoTHRj=_2&renderMode=0&tangentEdgeStyle=1&rightPanel=configPanel&uiState=66462c901c8d8a7738886692

maciej_mazur

Thank you very much for the feedback and useful example. It makes more sense now. I really appreciate your input. Cheers