I am so done with this...

milo_connolly

I want to start off by saying that onshape is a very capable CAD program. I think it has a lot of potential in the future, but as it has only gained traction relatively recently, there just hasn't been enough time to fully flesh out the details and add new features that it's competitors have. I also think that people use it for the wrong things and the wrong purpose. I see so many makers using OnShape, even though it is really designed for larger industrial and commercial assemblies - like industrial level assemblies, as OnShape themselves show every time I sign in.

I'm part of the robotics team at our school, and I hate using onshape for this application. Assemblies are simply way too small to justify using onshape, because the whole partstudio/assembly mechanism only works for really large assemblies. Just because the library of FTC parts is available in onshape doesn't mean that we just automatically switch to it. We used to use Fusion 360, which I still use under a free student license (something onshape doesn't have, i'll get back to this later) for personal projects, and it was great. The parts library is the only real reason we switched - the director of robotics for our school says that we also use it for collaboration reasons, but this makes no sense as fusion has the same collaboration capability.

My main difficulties with OnShape compared to Fusion, other than the UI (I dislike it but I think it is really more personal preference than being a matter of one actually being better than the other) comes with sketches, constraints, automatic updates between part studios and assemblies and variable studios, and how it deals with lost/missing projected geometry. When an item is changed that is projected into a sketch down the timeline, Fusion gives you the option to simply re-link the projected geometry. With onshape, I have to manually go in, delete the geometry, then relink it. Also, whenever I make any sort of geometry change to that object, even if it doesn't directly or indirectly affect the projected part of that shape, onshape still gives an error, whereas fusion will try its best to find the geometry and relink it automatically. This isn't too bad when its just one or two missing objects, but I'm currently designing a special kind of chassis for robotics, and I have brackets for the odometry pods that keep giving me errors whenever I update anything related to them, and there is a ton of projected geometry into a following sketch that constantly has to get relinked. It can take me up to five minutes to re-link the projected geometry and reapply constraints, which is about the same amount of time it took me to design them in the first place. By the way, fusion automatically re-applies most if not all constraints onto relinked geometry.

Sketching in and of itself is fine, although I don't like a lot of the default key binds (again more personal preference). My main thing with it is that when you zoom out too far, it gets very clunky and hard to see.

Automatic updates also suck. I'm going to put that out there - I don't want to have to go between part studio and assembly and constantly have to wait an entire minute for the context update to finish. Nor do I want to have to wait two minutes to see what breaks when I change a parameter that has no reason to break anything (I have checked, there is no bad references, dimensions, or constraints that should ruin the update) then spend another 10 fixing everything.

Oh, and another thing fusion has over onshape- AUTOMATED SKETCH CONSTRAINTS. I can press one button, and fusion will automatically generate a list of ways to fully constrain the sketch, I can chose one, and it will apply it for me.

Also, while feature scripts are great, they are way overhyped - Fusion has had the same thing for years now, and I can do so many more things with them than onshape can.

And don't get me wrong - Fusion also has its fair share of problems, but none of them are anything that onshape fixes. Also, that whole thing where onshape has the FTC parts library? Guess what. Fusion has a BUILT IN feature where I can import ANYTHING from McMaster Carr without having to download, drag and drop, then wait for it to upload, and insert it.

And heres one more I experienced while writing this - When I update the context, I get no errors, but the context doesn't fully update. It still shows the blue dot that means the context is not up to date, and the way it updated flipped everything 90 degrees around the Z world axis.

And the last thing - pricing. While I know neither I nor my robotics team pays for onshape, the prices are still ridiculous for what it offers. Annually, fusion is just $680, with no limitations. The cheapest plan for OnShape is $1500 a year, over double the cost, and the ONLY thing it gives you is having your documents no longer be public, which you get for free with Fusion. To get everything OnShape has to offer, you have to spend $2500 A YEAR. Ridiculous. And all the features that onshape offers with that $2500 plan other than being cloud-based are available FOR FREE with fusion.

Look. I know I'm just kinda ranting here, but if any onshape devs see this and have any sort of power over onshape's features, please fix this because I'm going to be stuck having to use this program for the next few years and I know that OnShape could be so much better than it is right now.

eric_pesty

I can't speak to everything you say but a couple things you say raise some questions about how you are using the tool that I think could be related to your frustration.

It sounds like you are using a lot of in context design and you mention lots of projected geometry. I would suggest going through the "top down design" learning center course as I believe there are much better way to achieve what you are trying to do...

Ste_Wilson

https://learn.onshape.com/

EvanReese

I've used Onshape professionally for over 8 years and I'm with the director on this one. I know for a fact Onshape is a great choice for robotics. My only suggestion is just to stick with it until it becomes a bit more natural. It's always hard switching from another tool that you're comfortable with. It can feel like trying to use your non-dominant hand for a while, but it's a short phase with practice. Have you seen FRCdesign.org?

Some of the things you mention could be nice add-ins for Onshape, like a McMaster connection, more automation around sketch constraints, and the ability to replace references (which they've been making progress on). I imagine each software has an edge in some area, but I think Onshape has the edge where it counts: full cloud, branching/merging and version control, collaboration (no Fusion isn't the same).

I also want to point out that Onshape isn't only for large assemblies. That's just something they show off because it proves that Onshape is a powerful tool, and people aren't used to being able to work on a large assembly without a gnarly PC workstation. Onshape a great tool for a single part design and a 1000 part design.

Nath_McC

Quite frankly, you could have just said, "I prefer Fusion over Onshape, it just doesn’t work for me. How do I reach out to provide my feedback?"

I was trying to get a sense of where you're coming from, whether you're a student or a teacher. It sounds like you’ve spent a good amount of time with Fusion and built up your workflow there, possibly learning through YouTube and other online resources. That might also explain why cost is such a concern. If you're using this in an educational context, it could be worth seeing if your school can access Onshape’s education plan, which might benefit more than just you.

I did want to respond to a few points. For example, the idea that Onshape only works for large assemblies isn’t quite accurate. Onshape’s part studio and assembly system scales well and works just as effectively with small assemblies. Its structure is designed for consistency, whether you're building two parts or two thousand.

Onshape is still evolving and gaining features, but like others have said, taking the time to explore it more thoroughly can help unlock its full potential.

In a professional setting, you don’t always get to choose your software. You’re often expected to adapt to whatever tools the company uses. From experience hiring students, you can usually tell the difference in modelling habits between those trained in Fusion and those trained in more traditional CAD tools like SolidWorks, Inventor, or Onshape. Fusion users sometimes bring in modelling practices influenced by more casual or informal learning resources, where only they will work on the files, while the other platforms like Onshape, Solidworks or Inventor tend to have more structured training materials.

I use both Fusion and Onshape regularly. The only major edge I’d give Fusion is its integrated CAM. But it’s not without issues, needing to manually enable “capture design history,” the complexity of configuration tools, and frustrations around drawing creation. The worst for me was when an update wiped out a chunk of my data, which took a long time to recover.

Would you be open to sharing a few of the models where you ran into trouble? Seeing how they were built might help forum members offer some useful alternatives or techniques. Based on what you’ve said, the issues may have more to do with the approach than platform limitations.

adrian_vlzkz

What is the goal of the Robotics program at the school? I'm assuming at is core it would be to prepare the students for industry and engineering careers… I would agree with you Onshape is more of a professional tool than Fusion, so I would way it's worth both the additional cost and the additional learning curve.