Improvements to Onshape - June 7th, 2024

nick_papageorge073 · June 10

billyzelsnack said:

billy2 said:

You guys do realize that you are committing to 1 Assy for 1 PS? It's a set. Do you think replication can happen in any available assembly or should there be a special assembly assigned for this purpose?

I'm working on a company standard as many of us are doing. One day, my day of reckoning, I'm going to sit in front of a bunch of engineers and say ok guys this is how it's done.

I don't know if I'm one of the guys you're referring to but I think assemblies should go away (i know, not gonna happen) and instances added in a part studio via a feature and baking of instance manipulations done with a feature too. I want the entire CAD process programmatic!

I would love for you to post your process. I've found that even simple contexts are too complex in production because it is not possible to ensure that everyone that might interact with a workspace is at the high end of the onshape experience level.

Fusion 360 does something like this. Part and assembly design in the same workspace. I used it for a year before finding OS (at home for hobby stuff, dayjob was Creo). I disliked it, and combined part/asm was one reason. You couldn't pay me to use it now.

JosefBurjeta · June 10

There are definitely some nice features, I was looking forward to Excel to Onshape. But I'm a bit disappointed from released result.

There's still an issue with merged cells, some characters are missing and superscript/subscript characters are not recognized at all. They shall be at least copied as normal text without any format.

Why is the format, color and alignment not propagated? Will it be in the future?

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/lr/sqbx1ohl79db.png

brian_siebert221 · June 10

I am sure this has been answered before, but is there an update on Cloud Milling? Have been hanging out to rid myself of Inventor CAM.

DDesign · June 10

Hi there, as much as I like the idea of being able to control my arrow head on the area (and I do its a great feature) When i now need to specify a direction on a note say.... grain direction - the arrow now defaults to the dot. As it is not pointed at a part just a floating note I cant control it.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/5l/q3tf3ex1389i.png

What am I supposed to do to notate direction now? Thoughts..

Thilo · June 10

Another set of great additions, guys. Thank you!

First thing I tried: Export multiple parts to separate files.
It is nice that all files come packed as a ZIP.
However, it would be great if Onshape used the formats specified in the export rules for those separate file names. Mine here exported as PART STUDIO NAME - PART NAME. The document name, part numbers, and revisions I need were omitted, although specified in the export rules for parts.

S1mon · June 10

Thilo said:

Another set of great additions, guys. Thank you!

First thing I tried: Export multiple parts to separate files.
It is nice that all files come packed as a ZIP.
However, it would be great if Onshape used the formats specified in the export rules for those separate file names. Mine here exported as PART STUDIO NAME - PART NAME. The document name, part numbers, and revisions I need were omitted, although specified in the export rules for parts.

It’s possible this was considered and done that way intentionally, but it seems like a bug to me. Fill out a support ticket, please.

jakeramsley · June 10

S1mon said:

Thilo said:

Another set of great additions, guys. Thank you!

First thing I tried: Export multiple parts to separate files.
It is nice that all files come packed as a ZIP.
However, it would be great if Onshape used the formats specified in the export rules for those separate file names. Mine here exported as PART STUDIO NAME - PART NAME. The document name, part numbers, and revisions I need were omitted, although specified in the export rules for parts.

It’s possible this was considered and done that way intentionally, but it seems like a bug to me. Fill out a support ticket, please.

Hi S1mon,

For this release it was intentional. Export rules results in some complexity that we decided to eliminate from the scope for this release. It is something we intend to do, so if it is something you would like us to prioritize submit a ticket (as you suggested).

john_mcclary · June 10

I would like to be added to that ticket as well.

I have a bulk file rename utility.
But "it would be nice" if it followed export rules directly.

billy2 · June 10

The new derive rocks! I was doing what John does, import once and then translate away leaving a fragile string of dependent features.

The documentation has been updated, I know because I couldn't figure it out by clicking on things. It works really well.

You have to the create a new derive, the old one didn't update, and then reroute all the references.

Before:

After:

The after version is better, it's simpler and more robust because it doesn't use a chain of dependencies.

billy2 · June 10

@billyzelsnack I'm just stating a fact, if you use OS (and you should ) you will use a PS and it's going to have an accompanying Assy.

I've run many teams in the past and I always define standards. It's more fun that way because things get done so quickly. There are many companies out there that resemble cats plowing fields, its total chaos.

I'm not the guy to setup best practices, @S1mon is a much better choice, bug him to do it, he seems frustrated. Will I help, share and contribute? Absolutely.

I gotta get back to work, nice to meet you.

Nick_Holzem · June 10

Paste as table from excel is great! But what about copy table from Onshape and paste to Excel?

Cut/copy & paste groups/selections of cells in existing OS table is highly desirable. Without this ability some say its not practical to manage tables in Onshape.

Link to improvement request:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/18235/drawing-table-usability-improvements

jacques_spillmann · June 10

ilya_baran said:

The SuperDerive custom feature is now basically obsolete -- I've unpublished it (of course it will continue working and can still be used). Also worth noting for FeatureScript developers -- we now allow nesting of parameter groups.

wait, I don't think the new derived feature improvement cover importing variables, does it?

jelte_steur814 · June 11

Very happy with the normal to guide option! Saves some useless surface extrudes (for a tangency constraint) that need to be deleted later.

jacques_spillmann · June 11

jacques_spillmann said:

ilya_baran said:

The SuperDerive custom feature is now basically obsolete -- I've unpublished it (of course it will continue working and can still be used). Also worth noting for FeatureScript developers -- we now allow nesting of parameter groups.

wait, I don't think the new derived feature improvement cover importing variables, does it?

@ilya_baran, the mate connector behavior does not work the same as super derive so I can't use the updated derived feature yet, it seems the derived part mate connector is not detected and Onshape does not align it with the target mate connector like it does in super derive.

jacques_spillmann · June 11

jacques_spillmann said:

jacques_spillmann said:

ilya_baran said:

The SuperDerive custom feature is now basically obsolete -- I've unpublished it (of course it will continue working and can still be used). Also worth noting for FeatureScript developers -- we now allow nesting of parameter groups.

wait, I don't think the new derived feature improvement cover importing variables, does it?

@ilya_baran, the mate connector behavior does not work the same as super derive so I can't use the updated derived feature yet, it seems the derived part mate connector is not detected and Onshape does not align it with the target mate connector like it does in super derive.

as mentioned, the SuperDerive has the "include variables" check box option that makes it very valuable compare to the standard derived feature.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/i6/k0g83yvvr2rk.png

elif · June 11

jacques_spillmann said:

jacques_spillmann said:

ilya_baran said:

The SuperDerive custom feature is now basically obsolete -- I've unpublished it (of course it will continue working and can still be used). Also worth noting for FeatureScript developers -- we now allow nesting of parameter groups.

wait, I don't think the new derived feature improvement cover importing variables, does it?

@ilya_baran, the mate connector behavior does not work the same as super derive so I can't use the updated derived feature yet, it seems the derived part mate connector is not detected and Onshape does not align it with the target mate connector like it does in super derive.

I'm not sure I understand the limitation with mate connectors you're referring to. Would you mind opening a support ticket for this?

jacques_spillmann · June 11

elif said:

jacques_spillmann said:

jacques_spillmann said:

ilya_baran said:

The SuperDerive custom feature is now basically obsolete -- I've unpublished it (of course it will continue working and can still be used). Also worth noting for FeatureScript developers -- we now allow nesting of parameter groups.

wait, I don't think the new derived feature improvement cover importing variables, does it?

@ilya_baran, the mate connector behavior does not work the same as super derive so I can't use the updated derived feature yet, it seems the derived part mate connector is not detected and Onshape does not align it with the target mate connector like it does in super derive.

I'm not sure I understand the limitation with mate connectors you're referring to. Would you mind opening a support ticket for this?

will do, thanks

jacques_spillmann · June 11

jacques_spillmann said:

elif said:

jacques_spillmann said:

jacques_spillmann said:

ilya_baran said:

The SuperDerive custom feature is now basically obsolete -- I've unpublished it (of course it will continue working and can still be used). Also worth noting for FeatureScript developers -- we now allow nesting of parameter groups.

wait, I don't think the new derived feature improvement cover importing variables, does it?

@ilya_baran, the mate connector behavior does not work the same as super derive so I can't use the updated derived feature yet, it seems the derived part mate connector is not detected and Onshape does not align it with the target mate connector like it does in super derive.

I'm not sure I understand the limitation with mate connectors you're referring to. Would you mind opening a support ticket for this?

will do, thanks

https://onshape.zendesk.com/hc/requests/352996

ilya_baran · June 11

@jacques_spillmann For most use cases, Variable Studios are the preferred approach, rather than bringing in variables from another part studio.

Craig_Sinclair · June 12

Yay to derived with location.

When using derived to bring a sketch into a part studio to make cut features. Whats best for keeping the model lightweight. Currently our sketches are in part studio's that have solid geometry and i feel this might be affecting performance. Would it improve performance to keep these sketches in their own part studios in the same document or would it be even better to keep these sketches in their own seperate document.

dirk_van_der_vaart · June 13

Wow, SuperDerive combined with a PartStudio configuration, endless combinations.

Josiah_Harthcock · June 13

I love how many nuggets from the Onshape team are buried in the comments on this post! 😃

Great job team! Now to work out how we will implement "workspace protection" in our org.

One thing that has had me puzzled for awhile is why would anybody do a lot of these "assembly" type actions in part studios? I have been seeing a lot of features added that seem to make this easier and I don't see hardly any value add. Somebody help me with what I'm missing? The way I think through it is you define a component's features in one place and it's relationship to other parts like motion in another place. Using Fusion 360 is a massive pain for large assemblies to do everything in one place on my end...

eric_pesty · June 13

Josiah_Harthcock said:

I love how many nuggets from the Onshape team are buried in the comments on this post! 😃

Great job team! Now to work out how we will implement "workspace protection" in our org.

One thing that has had me puzzled for awhile is why would anybody do a lot of these "assembly" type actions in part studios? I have been seeing a lot of features added that seem to make this easier and I don't see hardly any value add. Somebody help me with what I'm missing? The way I think through it is you define a component's features in one place and it's relationship to other parts like motion in another place. Using Fusion 360 is a massive pain for large assemblies to do everything in one place on my end...

One of the key reason for doing stuff in PS is that there is no FS available in the assembly environment and things can be more "parametric" that way...

lana · June 14

Craig_Sinclair said:

Yay to derived with location.
When using derived to bring a sketch into a part studio to make cut features. Whats best for keeping the model lightweight. Currently our sketches are in part studio's that have solid geometry and i feel this might be affecting performance. Would it improve performance to keep these sketches in their own part studios in the same document or would it be even better to keep these sketches in their own seperate document.

The base part studio content is processed ( at times regenerated) within the deriving studios. If you have some layout sketches you want to share between several part studios ( and maybe assembly), keeping them in a separate part studio is the best approach. As for keeping them in a separate document the recommended process would be: while you are working out the layout and changing the sketches frequently, Keep it in the same workspace as the part studios using them. When you are pretty happy with the sketches, move the part studio with them out into a separate document. Now other part studios reference them via version and benefit from caches.

emagdalenaC2i · June 15

En este enlace podéis ver las Novedades de Onshape en español:

https://youtu.be/35BRmcmfn3Q

billy2 · June 20

I like the new derived, but...

A new document with cylinder and cap:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/b0/braxixu4dczy.jpg

So I created a new document thinking that my old document that's months old has issue from something I created. Above notice the locations available.

Look at cap:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/ff/fsl359g15m6n.jpg

Half the location points are missing in the preview.

With nothing else in a document, the feature works fairly well and you can see how it's suppose to work.

Here's another document and deriving a part:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/lt/tw0smmrkd33c.jpg

you see a preview but the locations aren't active and I can't place it, nothing activates locations. This derived part does have a mate connector.

Deriving a composite has it's own behaviors:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/jf/4yfmwvgd97os.jpg

The composite derived part doesn't preview, none of the options brings anything back to life.

Things that I have found that help:
-save the errored feature and then edit it, sometimes it comes back to life
-open the derived part and then return to the errored derived feature
-use derived in the morning but not in the afternoon

This is a wonderful improvement, but it's not a robust feature.

wayne_sauder · June 20

I have had the same issues with the new derive feature. Often missing the mate connectors for location.

elif · June 20

@billy2 and @wayne_sauder can you please file support tickets and share documents so that we can investigate further?

wayne_sauder · June 20

@elif

Murphy's law, I ran into this the other day and just dealt with it. However, when I try to recreate the issue for support, it will not act up.

I did wonder. I was working with this right after the update was released. Is it possible that the combination of deriving from an old document that was likely not updated yet into a new document created issues?

elif · June 20

That's unfortunate, but thank you for trying. Please do reach out if you run into this issue again.
Deriving from an older (pre-update) document should not have made a difference. And if it did, it would definitely be worth looking into.

Improvements to Onshape - June 7th, 2024

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories