How to export parts as one

henry_feldman

Sorry if this ends up a dup, but the post never showed up

I have a parts studio with threaded posts that I use throughout a project. I keep it separate (and another for nuts) just because otherwise the primary parts studio is chaotic and the parts don't need to directly relate (or maybe as you see they do).

When, in my assembly, I add the threaded rods to the parts they come out of, they are of course separate parts, mated with a fastened mate. This is fine in OS, and this part is reused multiple times in my assembly (along with the matching nuts).

However, it seems that when one exports to STL to 3D print this, the rod is a separate part as far as the slicer is concerned. Is there a way to make these (either in part studio, assembly or export) to make this one object (e.g. they way it would be if I used "add" on a feature) as far as the STL is concerned. I only care that they print as one...

øyvind_kaurstad

henry_feldman said:

_Dave_ said:

Henry

 No, sorry all the parts that you wish to boolean must be in the same part studio.

So I guess the corollary is can one import a part from one parts studio to another in the same document?

Yes. In your case it sounds even better to use the derived feature. You then derive a part from a different part studio to the current part studio, and use it there. If you make changes to the original (in the source part studio), those changes will also be reflected in the derived part.

If I'm understanding what you are doing here correctly, it is the ideal case for derived parts.

_Ðave_

Henry

 See link below for derived part help.

https://cad.onshape.com/help/index.htm#derived.htm#kanchor154

HTH

tom_scarince

Your logic is impeccable, but it is no match for tradition.  In other industry-standard mcad packages the function is called "derive" so we're kinda stuck with it.  Change the name and we'd have other experienced cad users in here asking "Where the heck is the derive function?"

øyvind_kaurstad

Can't you just use a boolean in the part studio before exporting, so that the threaded rod and the part it is attached to becomes one part?

_Ðave_

Henry, If all the parts are in contact with each other. In the part studio 1st select the boolean tool, select all the parts and select the union option. This will create one part of all your selected parts. They must be connected thou.

henry_feldman

_Dave_ said:

Henry, If all the parts are in contact with each other. In the part studio 1st select the boolean tool, select all the parts and select the union option. This will create one part of all your selected parts. They must be connected thou.

Dave, can I do that if the part is from a different parts studio inside the same document?

_Ðave_

Henry

 No, sorry all the parts that you wish to boolean must be in the same part studio.

henry_feldman

_Dave_ said:

Henry

 No, sorry all the parts that you wish to boolean must be in the same part studio.

So I guess the corollary is can one import a part from one parts studio to another in the same document?

øyvind_kaurstad

henry_feldman said:

_Dave_ said:

Henry

 No, sorry all the parts that you wish to boolean must be in the same part studio.

So I guess the corollary is can one import a part from one parts studio to another in the same document?

Yes. In your case it sounds even better to use the derived feature. You then derive a part from a different part studio to the current part studio, and use it there. If you make changes to the original (in the source part studio), those changes will also be reflected in the derived part.

If I'm understanding what you are doing here correctly, it is the ideal case for derived parts.

_Ðave_

Henry

 See link below for derived part help.

https://cad.onshape.com/help/index.htm#derived.htm#kanchor154

HTH

henry_feldman

Thanks so much guys. Derived is a terrible name for what it is (reference) since to me a derived thing is derived from another operation (like the angle of this feature in a sketch is dependent on the angle of that thing over there). But yes, perfect. The final step was understanding how to transform via mate connectors (yay!) which works perfectly. Then I unioned and perfecto... Only strange thing is if you have mate connectors in your derived part, and you union you lose those mate connectors... Not a big deal to recreate

jakeramsley

henry_feldman said:

Thanks so much guys. Derived is a terrible name for what it is (reference) since to me a derived thing is derived from another operation (like the angle of this feature in a sketch is dependent on the angle of that thing over there). But yes, perfect. The final step was understanding how to transform via mate connectors (yay!) which works perfectly. Then I unioned and perfecto... Only strange thing is if you have mate connectors in your derived part, and you union you lose those mate connectors... Not a big deal to recreate

It is called Derived because you are making a new part that is based on a previous one.  It is a one way operation, in that if you update the parent it will propagate to the child but not vice-versa.

Mate connectors are tired to a single part.  When you do the boolean, the part changes and I assume it can't associate the mate connector properly.  If you select the boolean in the other order, does the mate connector stay around?

henry_feldman

jakeramsley said:

henry_feldman said:

Thanks so much guys. Derived is a terrible name for what it is (reference) since to me a derived thing is derived from another operation (like the angle of this feature in a sketch is dependent on the angle of that thing over there). But yes, perfect. The final step was understanding how to transform via mate connectors (yay!) which works perfectly. Then I unioned and perfecto... Only strange thing is if you have mate connectors in your derived part, and you union you lose those mate connectors... Not a big deal to recreate

It is called Derived because you are making a new part that is based on a previous one.  It is a one way operation, in that if you update the parent it will propagate to the child but not vice-versa.

Mate connectors are tired to a single part.  When you do the boolean, the part changes and I assume it can't associate the mate connector properly.  If you select the boolean in the other order, does the mate connector stay around?

Yes the mate connectors stay around out in space, at the prior location where they were the part was imported, before I transformed the part to where it needed to be and then unioned... And I guess I don't think of getting a reference link to something as deriving. You don't get a derived file when you get an alias in the file system, and you don't get a derived document when you link something into word, photoshop, indesign, illustrator, etc. To me derived means you did a measurement and derived a value to be used elsewhere. I mean getting a link to the original holy-hand-grenade-of-antioch is just that, a link; while getting the number-of-the-counting=3 is a derived value... I realize it is semantics, but in UX semantics matter...

jakeramsley

henry_feldman said:

And I guess I don't think of getting a reference link to something as deriving. You don't get a derived file when you get an alias in the file system, and you don't get a derived document when you link something into word, photoshop, indesign, illustrator, etc. To me derived means you did a measurement and derived a value to be used elsewhere. I mean getting a link to the original holy-hand-grenade-of-antioch is just that, a link; while getting the number-of-the-counting=3 is a derived value... I realize it is semantics, but in UX semantics matter...

I don't see it as analogous to a link to a youtube page.  You don't edit and modify ontop of the link, you are just redirected to what content is already up there.  With derived part, it is a separate part that can continue to be modified added and changed into being a part that is derivative of the original part.  They share common characteristics, in fact one is the base for the other, but there is a clear parent-child relationship between them that edits and modifications only go one way (parent to children).

henry_feldman

jakeramsley said:

henry_feldman said:

And I guess I don't think of getting a reference link to something as deriving. You don't get a derived file when you get an alias in the file system, and you don't get a derived document when you link something into word, photoshop, indesign, illustrator, etc. To me derived means you did a measurement and derived a value to be used elsewhere. I mean getting a link to the original holy-hand-grenade-of-antioch is just that, a link; while getting the number-of-the-counting=3 is a derived value... I realize it is semantics, but in UX semantics matter...

I don't see it as analogous to a link to a youtube page.  You don't edit and modify ontop of the link, you are just redirected to what content is already up there.  With derived part, it is a separate part that can continue to be modified added and changed into being a part that is derivative of the original part.  They share common characteristics, in fact one is the base for the other, but there is a clear parent-child relationship between them that edits and modifications only go one way (parent to children).

The Monty Python bit wasn't about the youtube bit (that was for non-MP fans who don't catch the reference), but just me explaining what I view derived meaning. The true analogy is like Adobe InDesign (or any other desktop publishing package). When you embed a linked word document, the document is still editable in word, but all documents in InDesign that embed it will update themselves to what ever change you make in word (unless you unlink it); and like OS you can manipulate it as a stand alone entity inside a document inside the application after linking. Same is true in Final Cut Pro/Motion, etc. I could probably cite examples of this exact same behavior in hundreds of applications, and they all call it linking or embedding. The advantage of "link" is that it has an opposite (e.g. I can unlink the document) which I guess technically you can underive something but that is not a real word.

tom_scarince

Your logic is impeccable, but it is no match for tradition.  In other industry-standard mcad packages the function is called "derive" so we're kinda stuck with it.  Change the name and we'd have other experienced cad users in here asking "Where the heck is the derive function?"

henry_feldman

tom_scarince said:

Your logic is impeccable, but it is no match for tradition.  In other industry-standard mcad packages the function is called "derive" so we're kinda stuck with it.  Change the name and we'd have other experienced cad users in here asking "Where the heck is the derive function?"

Ah, I didn't realize that. Makes sense (just like I refer to it as Core memory) although the last machine with Core RAM was produced long before I was in business (and I started on Big Iron, so ...) ...