Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:

  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

Practical limit to model size?

øyvind_kaurstadøyvind_kaurstad Member Posts: 234 ✭✭✭
As I wrote in this thread: https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/2694/after-using-onshape-for-a-few-months, I have spent a lot of time waiting for Onshape while working on this particular model. The worst waiting is (naturally) when going back in history to do some modifications. Everything is then quite slow, and in many cases there are no indication (not even the spinner) to show that Onshape is working. While I had kind of hoped that someone from Onshape would reply to that thread (I feel I raised some valid issues), that hasn't happened (at least not yet).

My experience with that model tells me that it is too large for Onshape to handle with decent speed, so I am wondering how large models other people make with Onshape? I do realize that this is a difficult question, because it largely depends not only of the number of features, but also what kind of features are used. Some are more computational intensive than others, probably causing even more slowdowns than "lighter" features.

Here's a screenshot with model statistics of the model I am talking about:



As you can see, my model has a lot of arcs and splines (and sweeps), which is probably giving Onshape servers some additional work.
Am I asking too much when I want to have a model of this size and complexity in a tool like Onshape?

Comments

  • philip_thomasphilip_thomas Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,373
    Oyvind - this is very impressive and I will be showing this image to some of our senior developers to get their input. 
    I may be reaching out to you privately to ask if you would be willing to share this with us so that we may run a performance profile against it (we cannot see anyone's data unless they explicitly share it with us). Thank you.

    Philip Thomas - Onshape
  • philip_thomasphilip_thomas Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,373
    Oyvind - we are very impressed. Onshape is evolving rapidly, but we have to admit, we have been optimizing for mechanical design (castings, machined parts and mechanical assemblies). We fully intend to give you a complete toolset to complete projects like this, but as you have clearly demonstrated, it's doable today. I don't want to gloss over the acknowledgement that we know you have struggled at times and we want you to know that we are committed to making Onshape the go-to tool for industrial designers, plastics engineers and mechanical engineers alike. Stay tuned for more enhancements that are coming. Again - well done! :) 
    Philip Thomas - Onshape
  • brucebartlettbrucebartlett Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 1,934 PRO
    edited February 2016

    This is the model statistics for a project I am working on, all mechanical, I am starting to feel like we are running out of grunt but hopefully not. I am also trying to think of strategies to improve performance but hoping I don't have to use these.

    This is assembly only has half the parts included at this stage, I am about to start filling it out with the rest, will be very interesting to see the result's. There will be also hundreds of bolts and nuts but I don't think I'll be able to include these. Would like to show some pictures but still confidential.  




    Engineer ı Product Designer ı Onshape Consulting Partner
    Twitter: @onshapetricks  & @babart1977   
  • øyvind_kaurstadøyvind_kaurstad Member Posts: 234 ✭✭✭
    That's a large model, judging from the stats. I hope you will have less issues than I had, but I see that you are on a (presumably) US modeling server, while I'm in Europe. Could be that Onshape's US partners deliver better performance.

    Would be interested to hear how you get along with working on this model, as I have a feeling that in it's current state, Onshape has some challenges when model sizes starts getting large.


  • adam_mercieradam_mercier OS Professional Posts: 33 PRO
    I'm on the edge with one of my assemblies, it takes a while to load but once loaded it runs OK on my desktop, but not very good (very slow) on my laptop at work. the most annoying part is the time needed to display mates on parts at times. 


  • michał_1michał_1 Member, Developers Posts: 214 ✭✭✭
    Oyvind, Bruce is from Australia, so he should have worst connection...
  • øyvind_kaurstadøyvind_kaurstad Member Posts: 234 ✭✭✭
    Yes, I see that now. Sorry about that.
  • michał_1michał_1 Member, Developers Posts: 214 ✭✭✭
    One more thing,your model is very impressing, I really like it.
  • øyvind_kaurstadøyvind_kaurstad Member Posts: 234 ✭✭✭
    Thanks. You should know that you helped me a great deal when you answered my question about creating a marble rail. That was of course the precursor to this model, so you can take some credit too.  :-)
  • matthew_menardmatthew_menard Member Posts: 96 ✭✭
    Thanks. You should know that you helped me a great deal when you answered my question about creating a marble rail. That was of course the precursor to this model, so you can take some credit too.  :-)
    Is your marble track model done entirely in OnShape from the proof of concept you and @michał_1 discussed in this thread?:

    https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/2583/how-to-model-a-marble-track

    I hadn't gone back to see your previous concept in the end of that thread and am absolutely floored at the execution of the concept.  How robust is the model?  It looked like Michal had made OnShape do some serious tricks to even get the proof of concept to work without 3d sketching tools, so seeing this finished product is amazing.  Absolutely amazing work.
  • philip_thomasphilip_thomas Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,373
    edited February 2016
    @matthew_menard : SolidWorks much? :) 

    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape
    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape
    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape
    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape
    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape



    Philip Thomas - Onshape
  • øyvind_kaurstadøyvind_kaurstad Member Posts: 234 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2016
    @matthew_menard Yes, my model is done entirely in Onshape, and my primary take away from the mentioned thread was the concept of extruding to surfaces, and then splitting those to simulate 3D splines. At the time of that thread, Onshape didn't have the split faces tool (iirc), so you actually had to extrude a second surface to use as the splitting tool. However, I didn't use that technique in my model, since the split face tool is now available. That means I can extrude one surface (from the "ground"), and split that directly with a spline on a sketch on a plane normal to the "ground". It is a bit cumbersome, but in the end you end up with a "3D spline" that a profile can be swept along. You can't sweep the actual track profile though, because it will twist uncontrollably, so I swept a pipe, and then thickened the vertical surface to become wider than the pipe. Copy that, and transform the copy so that the top ends up above the pipe, and then intersect those bodies to have a new solid that can be used to subtract the top half of the pipe while maintaining the edges parallell to the ground.

    I don't think the model can be called robust, there are way too many workarounds and shady techniques (and I was also a bit too lazy regarding constraints), but the result is still quite good. And Onshape really generates extremely clean STL files. No repairing necessary whatsoever.

    @philip_thomas Nudge, Nudge, OnShape, OnShape.  :-)
  • michael3424michael3424 Member Posts: 486 ✭✭✭
    Thanks for uploading the STL files for your Cyclone.  I'll be printing it on my Zortrax M200 soon.  It would make a nice gift for a couple friends kids.  Once I get done with it, of course.
  • matthew_menardmatthew_menard Member Posts: 96 ✭✭
    @matthew_menard : SolidWorks much? :) 

    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape
    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape
    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape
    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape
    I will not incorrectly capitalize Onshape





    Duly noted, but I guess if I were staying with current capitalization conventions for other modeling packages, I should be spelling it ONSHAPE.  Old habits, I guess.  I blame the app on my phone for making me want to capitalize the letters.
  • matthew_menardmatthew_menard Member Posts: 96 ✭✭
    As an aside that's slightly on topic, is there a limit to the physical size of a model you can make in Onshape?  Another discussion board had somebody looking to model whole mine shafts in a different drawing package.  The problem was that the physical bounds of the software wouldn't allow for it directly.  There might have been a work around involving converting the units to kilometers, but I didn't look too deeply into it.  This got me wondering if Onshape could someday be used to create more civil engineering type designs.  Being able to take survey data and create 3d models of roadways with all of the utilities underneath would be extremely powerful.  I moved from civil drafting to mechanical about ten years ago. At the time it seemed like there were attempts at making software that would do this, but I don't know what the current state is. 

    Sorry for the tangent, just some musings that I had recently that I didn't think warranted its own thread.
  • philip_thomasphilip_thomas Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,373
    Michael - ha ha :)

    For Matthew - yes the physical limit is a cubic kilometer. From my previous life at SolidWorks and my work in Oil and Gas, components are modelled at life size and then for mockups, scaled to 1:10 and assembled for for full sea level to sea floor representations. This would work for mines as well. Don't forget though that pipes (and mine shafts) tend to look very thin at these scales. This technique while it works, is rarely used.
    Philip Thomas - Onshape
  • famadorianfamadorian Member Posts: 317 ✭✭
    As I wrote in this thread: https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/2694/after-using-onshape-for-a-few-months, I have spent a lot of time waiting for Onshape while working on this particular model. The worst waiting is (naturally) when going back in history to do some modifications. Everything is then quite slow, and in many cases there are no indication (not even the spinner) to show that Onshape is working. While I had kind of hoped that someone from Onshape would reply to that thread (I feel I raised some valid issues), that hasn't happened (at least not yet).

    My experience with that model tells me that it is too large for Onshape to handle with decent speed, so I am wondering how large models other people make with Onshape? I do realize that this is a difficult question, because it largely depends not only of the number of features, but also what kind of features are used. Some are more computational intensive than others, probably causing even more slowdowns than "lighter" features.

    Here's a screenshot with model statistics of the model I am talking about:



    As you can see, my model has a lot of arcs and splines (and sweeps), which is probably giving Onshape servers some additional work.
    Am I asking too much when I want to have a model of this size and complexity in a tool like Onshape?


    Did you link to this model? Would be interesting to study your way of doing it;) Takk så meget for det;)
  • owen_sparksowen_sparks Member, Developers Posts: 2,446 PRO
    It'd be interesting to compare the 2016 regen time to the 2019 one, for the same file. 🤔
    Production Engineer
    HWM-Water Ltd
  • philip_thomasphilip_thomas Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,373
    @famadorian - that is a wonderful model that you have.
    It is also full of very 'expensive' operations.

    My first reactions are;
    1) From the feature statistics, what is the total regen time?  This number is the total modeling server 'thinking' time - nothing to do with facetization or data transmission. If there are any 'very time consuming' features (more than a few seconds), then we should be looking at those.
    2) I suspect that the part resolution is turned up very high. From lowest to highest, there are orders of magnitude more facets being created - that all takes time. Try setting the part resolutions to 'automatic' - chances are that will speed things up.

    Happy to look at the model if you chose to share a link. That said, there is no way that this is 'beyond' Onshape :)
    Philip Thomas - Onshape
  • MBartlett21MBartlett21 Member Posts: 1,666 EDU
    @philip_thomas
    I think it is @øyvind_kaurstad 's model :)

    MB - I make FeatureScripts:View FeatureScripts
  • famadorianfamadorian Member Posts: 317 ✭✭
    @famadorian - that is a wonderful model that you have.
    It is also full of very 'expensive' operations.

    My first reactions are;
    1) From the feature statistics, what is the total regen time?  This number is the total modeling server 'thinking' time - nothing to do with facetization or data transmission. If there are any 'very time consuming' features (more than a few seconds), then we should be looking at those.
    2) I suspect that the part resolution is turned up very high. From lowest to highest, there are orders of magnitude more facets being created - that all takes time. Try setting the part resolutions to 'automatic' - chances are that will speed things up.

    Happy to look at the model if you chose to share a link. That said, there is no way that this is 'beyond' Onshape :)
    It wasn't me. 
  • philip_thomasphilip_thomas Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,373
    @famadorian - ooops :)

    Philip Thomas - Onshape
Sign In or Register to comment.