Basic help Managing parts between multiple Part Studios and multiple Documents

brett_boley

I've been searching the YouTubes and the forum posts for quite awhile, trying to answer my own question…unsuccessfully.

Essentially, I learned Onshape over the past year, using a Top-Down approach. Now that I am making something much more complex (and only discovered the roll-back feature two days ago), my part studio is extremely convoluted. I'm wishing I had built it in a bottom-up method. I really want to start over, just importing the best parts from my convoluted model into a new clean Document. What I really want to do is Copy a part in one part studio, open another Document, and paste the part into that studio. That doesn't seem possible.

I also tried duplicating my convoluted part studio tab, renaming the copy as a specific part, and deleting everything I didn't need, but this just adds 'deleted' steps at the bottom of a convoluted sketch copy.

Before I start over from scratch, I wanted to ask if I'm missing some simple solution. Thanks and sorry for the basic n00b question. I really did try to answer this for myself.

MichaelPascoe

.

There are quite a few ways to import / export or reference parts. Based on your issues, you need to re-model from scratch while keeping in mind the things you learn from the learning pathways. If there are parts you never want to change again, it is possible to export those parts individually then import them into your new clean project, but I recommend having a clean start.

From the issues your describing, it sounds like you haven't completed the Learning Pathways these will step you through best practices ensuring you can model efficiently without making more work for yourself downstream.

.

EvanReese

@brett_boley It's great that you're trying for a top-down method. I'm a big proponent of this approach, but it does also require care and forethought. Done right it gives you flexibility through the entire process instead of change becoming harder and more convoluted as you go (like a bottom up approach). I do plan on making some more videos about top-down design at some point, but here's one about model structure that could be helpful.

It sounds like you've somewhat painted yourself into a bit of a corner, which can happen. A main reason I see models get convoluted is that the vision for the model wasn't fully established before beginning. To do that I recommend doing quick, but flimsy CAD to explore ideas, and answer your own questions. Once that's done you scrap that and start fresh with a new clean model. Think of it like doing thumbnail sketches before doing an involved painting. If you jump straight to the clean one, you're likely to have too much vestigial baggage from figuring everything out as you go. Of course there's always some problem-solving left, but ideally nothing major or fundamental.

So the question changes from "what's the right way to do this model top-down" to "what's the best path forward from here" and the answer depends on your goals and needs. On one end of the spectrum is exporting and re-importing all of your parts to get rid of all of your feature tree. At the other end is a new clean rebuild. If it's something you are almost done with and just want to finish and be done with, the former can make sense. If it's a model that has a ways to go and you expect to keep maintaining/tweaking it for a while, a clean rebuild might be better. It won't take as long as you think since you've presumably solved most of the problems now and your only focus is clean CAD.

martin_kopplow

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/28782/basic-help-managing-parts-between-multiple-part-studios-and-multiple-documents

Deleting parts does funnily not reduce clutter: For each part removed, you'll get one feature more in return. When cleaning up crowded part studios, the only way appears to travel back in time (using the roll back bar) and clean out all features that led to the outdated parts. Tedious, though.

Part studios come cheap and you can have as many as you want. I usually open a few part studios I tag "EXP" for experimental and try out parts in these. Sometimes they mature to usable parts and I include them in a subassembly or derive them into another part studio. Sometimes I find a better solution and just delete the "EXP" part studio. Clean job, and that way; I can keep my master assembly lean and still feed it all the parts, but not necessarily all from one super-part studio.

nick_papageorge_dayjob

Without looking at your document it's hard to say exactly what your'e after.

Can you simply use the parts you already made in a new assembly? And anything new that must be designed, only draw those parts, perhaps with in-context assembly references as needed?

One comment if you decide to start over: The time to re-model the design now, if simply re-modelling it in new part studios, will be significantly less. The first time you make a design, you are both modeling it in CAD, AND, thinking through how it will work. The second time, you are only doing the cad portion.

Derek_Van_Allen_BD

I'm always telling my team that the best time to light their model on fire and start over was 50 versions ago, the second best time is right now. Top down design is still the best method to control cases like you're describing because if you set them up right a total rebuild of one of the subsystems or subcomponents should be isolated to just the parts contained within and not require a total rework of all neighboring assemblies.

And I'll also admit to more than my preferred share of CAD database having the first feature in the tree be the Import feature from experiments past when I'm too lazy to do a full rework. Some products of which are best-sellers for my company. Not necessarily the cleanest method but let's be real, the feature tree isn't the thing that hits the shop floor at the end of the day.