Improvements to Onshape - June 7th, 2024

billy2

@elif it's getting better by the hour.

You fixed switched to derive:


You had to have this to create mate connectors on parts that had none. A few days ok this didn't exist.

You had to have mate connectors in a part for anything to work.

And then:

You fixed base origin. A base origin is a mate connector and should be treated as one. You no longer have to create mate connectors to use this new feature. I'm currently removing all the mate connectors from parts that don't need them.

At this rate, you going to fix everything by the time I create a ticket.

You do need to update your documentation about base origin, it wasn't clear that the origin is treated as a mate connector.

I'm still creating & then editing to get things to work properly. It needs to always work on creation. The good news is that once it's created correctly you're done.

I'll wait a few days and then bitch some more, if there's a reason to complain.

billy2

So here's a tip when working with the new derive. Correctly position the part by transforming it to the origin vs. creating mate connectors. 

Most my parts are simple and from mcmaster carr. Their origin is never in the correct spot or orientation for inserting purposes especially with this new derive.

The mcmaster original part:

no bueno look at z


The modified mcmaster part:

es bueno, now look at z


It's cleaner to fix the derived part aligning the origin and then using base origin:



There will be times when you need multiple location points, but for most parts, only one is needed and a base origin is fastest.


One other good thing, if you have mate connectors in your derived part, base origin will the 1st mate connector vs. the origin. This is good if you don't want to transform the part to the origin. I believe this came over from super derived or what ever the FS was called.

This is starting to work really well.


@elif here's one for you, I want instancing inside a PS. When do I decide to move to an assembly? When I have 2 of something? That's not a good work flow. BOM's are important and we have to create them correctly. With this new derive, it's going to be so fast to design and build stuff. 

Tell who ever fixed this, thanks

qiayuan_liao728

What if in some configuration the derived parts will be same and some configurations they are different?

Consider a simple example:

• I want to build a shell or a frame to connect two motors;
• There are three type of motors with small different: some dimension and mounting interface;
• I create some sketch and some "cutting tools" for each motors in one part studio named "motor";
• I create a part studio named "shell". Derived two motors with same/different type and CAD everything base on the derived sketch;
• Here is the problem: I want to have multiple types of shell for different combination of motors, what should I do?
• Or even simpler, I originally design a shell for two different motors, but now I want one for the same motors, the "only one for same part" will be very painful
  
  

brennon_williams270

Hello,

While new updates are always welcomed, my biggest problem with onshape is the lack of implementing the basics - such as Threading support (not just in documents) along with gears.

Relying on the community to create these scripts is both lazy and unprofessional.

Looking at any YouTube videos out there that discuss gears and or threads - read the comments - they are really not positive towards onshape at all.

Good efforts have been made by others, but clearly they lack any formal support and to be frank, the whole sharing of feature scripts in documents thing is a complete UX nightmare, especially for new users.

Get the basics right first.

Coming from another product into onshape, the experience has been for the most part really positive - but I certainly can't use the Refer a Friend button until these foundational areas are addressed.

mike_hölscher

@ilya_baran , I just used the "export parts as indiviidual files' for the first time, but I noticed the export rules do not work for the separate files right now. Renaming all the files manually means this new function does not save me time right now. and is prone to errors. We have a company wide export rule to include the part number and revision in the revision. Should I make an improvement request for this or is this post enough? Or is there something I can do to fix this? I just want all the separate files exported like I would get them like I am downloading them separately.

dave_lapthorne

jakeramsley said:

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).

@mike_hölscher, please see above. If you could log a support ticket we can add that to our list for prioritizing future updates.

mike_hölscher

dave_lapthorne said:

jakeramsley said:

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).

@mike_hölscher, please see above. If you could log a support ticket we can add that to our list for prioritizing future updates.

Thank you @dave_lapthorne! I missed that reply. I just got added to the improvement request by @PeteYodis, thanks! This new function is really what we would like to have, but doesn't make sense to use it without export rules, for us.

bryan_lagrange

Will today be the day we all celebrate "Onshape 3 Week Update Day" ?

Let's see sheet metal loft!

robert_stiles

I'm rooting for "suppression by expression". Come on @NeilCooke

sebastian_glanzner

bryan_lagrange said:

Will today be the day we all celebrate "Onshape 3 Week Update Day" ?

Let's see sheet metal loft!

Yes, we need sheet metal loft 

Shaolo

Can't even begin to express my excitement at a kb shortcut for measure!!!