Product Names for Standard Hardware

Nath_McC

Is there a easy way to update all of the product name and description meta data in the standard content hardware at once?

I mean without having to load each model and update the custom properties one at a time. Im thinking something similar to the layout of the toolbox grid in Solidworks.

I dont want to add or amend any of the standard data just bulk update the hardware product codes to use our internal one.

e_g_e

What we are planning to do is insert the hardware parts in question into an assembly, e.g. an assembly for fasteners of a certain standard. In the flyout BOM you could do some semi bulk editing. Changing the metadata here will update the database.

Nath_McC

Do you will have an assembly file with each confirguration so you can use the BOM to update all in one go?

e_g_e

@Nath_McC

Yes, kind of.
It is not fully thought out yet, but I am thinking doing something like this.


Assembly tabs represent fastener standard.
Folders in assembly represents the different configurations

But it might be cleaner to have one assembly tab represent an narrower scope, like "ISO 4762, 12.9 class" or "ISO 4762, A4 Stainless Steel".
It depends on how hard it is to maintain this system. I like having as many bolts as possible in the BOM table at the same time. Then I can sort by material or finish when doing edits to the Part Numbers and Decriptions.

There are potentially hundreds of variations to add metadata to, which is another reason to try to standardize types of bolts in our products.

One more thing: I created a custom property called Finish, which has a selection list similar to the one available in the Standard Content Menu. This wasn't available as a default column, strangely enough.

Hope this helps! Would like to know you thoughts on this and possible improvements.

john_mcclary

Honestly, I gave up on the Onshape Fasteners.

There are way too many options, It's hard to find the "common" stuff we use normally.
People will tend to miss one of the options and then the BOM will have two separate parts, that should have been identical.
Some fasteners are missing. Some are modeled incorrectly, some have way too much detail.

I re-invented it here for us.
Feel free to copy it. (I never got far on the INCH portion, since we hardly use Inch anymore)
AEINC Fasteners | AEInc Fasteners METRIC (onshape.com)

Just update the CSV to add configurations.
Everything is modeled so it will output the same part model.
That way you don't have to "replace instance" if you go from a washer to a bolt or whatever.
It's just one part to fasten them all...

The Part number and Part Description is automatic based off configuration options too.

the downside is, There is no way to filter for valid parts.. example: you can configure a M6 flat washer with a length of 80mm.
Well obviously, washers don't have a bolt length. So the part will just fail until you set length to N/A
So if you want to get a bolt that is some size and length, and it isn't specified on the chart, then it will just fail. So it can be a guess and check to find valid lengths.

But if a length isn't on the list, it can be added very quickly.

martin_kopplow

@john_mcclary Okay, that's already pretty close! I usually know where the fastener has to go, then I decide what count, type and size is needed, and maybe change that as the design evolves. I like the appoach in principle. Do you think it might be possible to offer only size available from the CSV in the pulldown? (I am not a FS wizard ...)

WWAAI: I still don't get how OS lets us create a countersunk hole with noting inside, and then let us place maybe a counterbore bolt into it, using another independent tool. That makes no sense. In my bubble of thinking, a hole and a fastener require/define each other. I think the fasteners and the holes should be treated as one tool in OS. So, basically, when I place a fastener no matter where, there should be a checkbox: "Create matching hole". If I move the fastener to the side a bit, the hole should follow, ideally warning me if I get too close to the side surface to cut the thread or so. What else is all the AI hype good for?

john_mcclary

I can't set it up to filter what available from the CSV, because I'm using configs in a partstudio. Rather than an actual featurescript.
The only thing the featurescript is doing in in this case is parsing the CSV.

What do you mean counter sink hole with nothing inside?

If you want to invoke our AI overloards. Then you will need to write something up using the API.
But at that point, you are far off into the weeds of complexity for just a bolt name.

martin_kopplow

Well, I usually don't create a hole just for the hole (Hole by hole tool, not extruded partial negation of a relative totality). In 99,9% of all cases, there will be a bolt or someting else in it. So, I question the general concept of a tool, that only creates one part of a pair, not taking the other into account at all, then requires me to define everything again (for the bolt), leaving room for error (Counterbore bolt in countersunk hole, M6 bolt in an M8 hole, ...). If I place a bolt somewhere in my design, there is not much left a hole can possibly do on it's own. It has to take the bolt.

In my previous CAD, which could not hande bolts in automatic holes either, I had a library of fasteners that all had an invisible hole volume included with them. So, after placing, duplicatig or patterning bolts all over the place, I could create (boolean) matching holes in one go. The boolean approach was but a workaround, for it was only possible to use that in the very end stage of a design (else, I would not have been able to redfine the bolt after the boolean was done). 

If a little smartness was built into an imaginary bolt- or rather fastener-and-hole tool, it could detect if the bolt went through one or more parts, if it ended inside or protruded at the other side and so on. Things like washers and nuts could be but an option box to check when needed. They would always exist at the surface, never below it, so that should be easy for a computer. Everything fasteners could be parmeter driven. I wonder why such tools aren't an industry standard by now.

eric_pesty

I think the challenge is that no single method is going to work for everyone...

There is a bit of a chicken and egg situation with fasteners, if you start from the assembly and throw fasteners in then it would be nice to have the fastener create the required features in the parts. You can to some extent use assembly contexts for this, by for example using a boolean (with offset) for the clearance holes but if your parts are in multiple part studios you will need to use multiple contexts etc...

However if you define the fastener locations in the part studio, then the "correct" fastener to use in the assembly isn't necessarily straightforward. You might have a bunch of identical threaded holes in a part that are used for fasten different things in the assembly and would use different fasteners.

That said there is a lot of room for improvement: the "insert" dialogue let's you pick the hole feature to match the thread size but it won't update if you change the feature.

I think if/when we get Featurescript in the assembly environment these sort of things will become a lot more feasible.

john_mcclary

I would not attempt in context relations with boolean offset for bolts. It is not a stretch to define a hole in a part studio, then drop a bolt in that hole in the assembly.

You gain a bunch of useful information using the hole feature.
Hole tolerance, standard clearances, thread pitch, etc.

You would have none of that using a boolean feature that comes from in context. And you would rely on your user to know all of the standard clearances.