Several Parts in one Part Studio vs several Part Studios

w_s856

What is the typical rationale for using several parts within a single Part Studio, vs dispatching them across several PS? 

Let's say I am making a cat feeder made of a cylinder with a hole, a helix to move the food ahead, a receptacle for food on the top, a lid, and a lid/box with a place for a motor. How would this usually be organized?

Matt_Shields

I usually keep parts in the same Part Studio if they share much geometry.  That way, making changes quickly propagates to all parts.  I start to break out into multiple Part Studios if the feature list gets huge and regeneration time starts to creep up, but for your cat feeder, I'd think one Part Studio would be great.  If you model the motor, that might be a separate Part Studio, but everything else seems pretty tightly connected.

matthew_stacy

@w_s856, good on you for raising this question.  We spend a great deal of time in these forum threads shining a spotlight on specific modeling features.  Often the larger challenge (and opportunity) is optimizing workflows and document structure to leverage Onshape's very unique capabilities:  branching/merging/versioning, document sharing, multi-part studios, etc.

With regard to multi-part studios, I agree with @Matt_Shields.  Put multiple parts in a single studio in situations where a high degree of a high degree of "associativity" between parts is advantageous.  Otherwise utilize multiple studios.

Larger questions arise with regard to folders, multiple versus single document, local variables, variable studios etc.  Onshape is a game changer.  How we utilize its unique capabilities is a more profound question than the strengths and weaknesses of individual tools.

nick_papageorge073

Small assemblies (or subassemblies) of OEM parts all in one part studio. Purchased parts (motor in your case) draw them (or import them) into their own part studio.

The rationale is it's much faster and easier to design things together. For example, the design intent is probably that the helix is a certain clearance to the ID of the cylinder. If it's designed next to the cylinder, it's one dimension between them to create that relation. Now if you decide you need a bigger cylinder, both the cylinder and the helix will update.

matthew_stacy

Does anyone know a good way to run a where-used query in Onshape?  Associativity between parts (changing one part changes others) may prove less desirable when the same part number is utilized in two, or more, assemblies.  A seemingly benign design change can easily have unintended consequences.

Optimal document structure depends on your specific business need and workflows.  Are parts and sub-assemblies re-useable?  Do you have an existing process to manage engineering-change?  The old adage is that if you are holding a hammer, everything starts to resemble a nail.  The trick is having the insight to seek out a more appropriate tool when need arises.

S1mon

Where-Used is one of the least functional tools in Onshape for me. Inevitability it just says it can’t find anything when I know it’s wrong. 

w_s856

nick_papageorge073 said:

For example, the design intent is probably that the helix is a certain clearance to the ID of the cylinder. If it's designed next to the cylinder, it's one dimension between them to create that relation. Now if you decide you need a bigger cylinder, both the cylinder and the helix will update.

This is a very good point, thank you. It was also one of my main constraints/worries if I end up exploding the object in multiple Part Studios