Standard Content

brucebartlett

I find standard content extremely hard to use. I want something much more usable, more like a commercial catalogue. What are others using?

S1mon

What do you mean "like a commercial catalog"? What issues are you running into?

There are certainly things I find frustrating about standard content, but I've been using it a lot lately, and I can't imagine not having it.

My biggest pain points:

1. A lot of relatively common things are missing.
2. Sizes are missing.
3. You can reconfigure to some degree, but you can't swap any screw type for any other screw type.
4. You can't add "standard" OTS stuff that's missing that your company uses all the time.

martin_kopplow

I use the standard content a lot, but I often have to work around the shortcomings.

• If a standard (EN, ISO, …) is used, ALL sizes the standard allows should be available.
• More types need to be included. MUCH more types.
• The types should be organized better (Filter/Menues) and previewed accurately.
• At some point in the design it might be necessary to swap one head type for the other, which is not possible.

… and countersunk screws never ever appear to insert into the correct position.

I have the impression that I would eventually want the insertion of standard fasteners accessible from the create hole tool edit box. A hole and a fastener usually need to have corresponding properties, so it would make sense to create and edit them together. I want to check a, "Include Fastener" in the hole tool dialog and when I specify say an M10x1,5 - 50mm cylindrical socket head bolt, that'll be the default settings for the hole. It makes no sense to have them coexist without sharing the same parameters in a prametric CAD system.

S1mon

Agreed.

There is an auto-size button, that I never think to use, which selects the appropriate fastener for the hole and distance.

https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/standard_content.htm#StepsD

I assume by "countersunk screws never ever appear to insert into the correct position", you mean that the snap mode isn't doing the right thing? That's annoying.

I was surprised to learn some tricks in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPydcq_D6oM

martin_kopplow

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/120888#Comment_120888

Yes, but it does not create a parametic connection and frequently fails, especially with length (and countersunk screws). So if we change the hole, the old bolt stays in and no error flagged.

Yes, but I did not mean the manual snap mode doesn't do the right thing. I mean the insert standard content tool itself: In OS, countersunk screws are meant to be referenced by the point of the countersink/head cone. When inserting into preselected holes, this does never ever work, though. The autosize returns an error and when the correct fastener size is set manually they end up being inserted too high or too low or even upside down. Also the insertion of multiple bolts in a preselected face doesn't work with countersunk (only in rare cases). I usually have to insert them one by one.

Possibly, the tool expects a face and a cylinder to work, not a cone.

In theory, it should put fasteners into all hole in this face. It doesn't, only places one at a time. I already tried other 'non.documented' selections that could make sense, but they just do 'non documented' things then ;0)

S1mon

If and when we get FeatureScript in assemblies, standard content could - in theory - become a lot smarter.

S1mon

Wow. I hadn't tried all those cases. That's rather embarrassing. Probably a dozen bugs in one short video.

GWS50

Shoulder bolts are one area that seems rather out of whack! There is one option for a shoulder size of 6.5mm……eh?

martin_kopplow

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/120894#Comment_120894

Basically only three bugs:

• The multiple holes in the preselected face don't get recognized.
• The insertion point doesn't get recognized.
• The multi-insert doesn't work.

The rest is just playing around to show what might be a meaningful approach and that the results are inconsistent. Anyway, far from satisfying.

S1mon

Until I watched that video, I didn't realize that "multi-insert" existed. It seems weird to have that AND "replicate". Replicate is parametric - and will update if the matching edges/holes change location/quantity - whereas I don't think the multi-insert does. I've often wished that the lead part and the replicate line were one line in the instance list instead of two, and I would be really happy if that "multi-insert" would create that replicate instead.

martin_kopplow

@S1mon

You're right. If cou change the number of points the holes are based on, or edit the pattern feature used to create a hole pattern, you'll just break the history.

I tend to agree on the lead part and the replicate instances in the list. The lead being the first in the line would appear natural. That might of course become problematic as soon as multiple patterns or copied instances were based upon the same lead part. Maybe it would then require someting like the "keep tools" check box in booleans …