Standard Content

GWS50

While i understand why Onshape adheres to the ISO standard I do think the Standard Content provided is way too limited

I.e, Shoulder bolts that don't have a 12mm shoulderØ

I also understand that it is probably far too much t expect Onshape to provide every single nut and bolt in the ISO "world" but can we not be allowed to add our own content?

Below is an ISO standard shoulder bolt with a 12mm shoulder yet Onshape jumps from 10mm to 16mm

M10 (10mm) x 12mm x 60mm Socket Shoulder Screws (ISO 7379) - High Tensile Steel (12.9)

After all we can add profiles to our own Frame library….this is most frustrating

martin_kopplow

In an ideal world, inserting standard content should generate all part configurations the applied standard allows.

That said, I believe the ISO content is way too limited, especially when it comes to basic fasteners. I had to download simple parts like nuts from Traceparts, for the OS provided ones lack certain sizes or don't include the most frequently used shapes (Like with nuts, where there are those fancy ones with integrated washers, but no shape A and no flat shape and so on). Importing those is time-consuming and breaks the concept of feature based design.

GWS50

yes quite….so allowing own libraries would mean you just need to import it once.

martin_kopplow

Sure. I would not want to import it, though. Not in the first place, only as a workaround. Instead, I would like to generate it, so I can go and edit it's dimensions at any time after. Say I inserted a Bolt M10 x 60mm and I find out I need it to be 80mm long a few days later: I just want to go to the standard content edit dialog and change 60 → 80 and everything - including the BOM - will update.

That does not mean custom libraries aren't highly useful, just they're not a good replacement for a good and comprehensive standard content management.

GWS50

agreed….. i’m just not sure whether we can expect Onshape to provide such a detailed library

martin_kopplow

I think they shouldn't. ;0)

In my opinion, standard content is not a library, but a parts generator. That is: The standard content would not be stored in a library where every type of bolt is 'on stock' in all sizes avialable as a file or such, but there was an algorithm that created the content on demand, based on the user input. There might be a matrix of all valid configurations, though, but that'd be just some kind of table (think Spreadsheet). Looking at it from that side, sizes missing are just a matter of marking them 'valid' in said table.

GWS50

yes absolutely…..but isn’t that still a massive amount of input from somebody to originate that file/document After all every ISO standard has to be applied/related?

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have the standard content as a fully editable database but in the short term we might get further down the line with being able to have a user generated library.

I guess I’m saying the user content library is a steppingstone to the end result……perhaps I should aim higher!!

martin_kopplow

Could be. The ISO standard already provides the definitions on what sizes are included, so yes, someone would have to read that into a file, I guess, but that's still far from keeping a library of modeled parts. OS already provides the means required, by allowing variables and configurations. So any user could already create kind of a part generation tool himself, create all configs possible out of that, and even store the results in documents and call it a library, if he wanted to. That'd be most useful for company specific parts, I think, not so much for standard content all users need.