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.

Why are there separate documents for parts studios and assemblies?

colemancoleman OS Professional Posts: 244 PRO
edited March 2016 in Community Support
Why are part studios and assemblies separate?  

Answers

  • colemancoleman OS Professional Posts: 244 PRO
    @PeteYodis - Thank you. 
    I read the comment from Scott.  
    I don't disagree.  Honestly...I don't really understand what he said and I read it a few times.  Scott is obviously way smarter than me :) 

    The reason I even ask the question is this-  
    Today I was trying to convince someone I work with to use onshape.  They gave me pushback saying "why would I model in a multi part environment and then have to create an assembly."  "If I need to build a mounting plate for a servo motor... I can't import the motor into the part studio, so I might as well use traditional CAD." 

    I didn't have a good answer....

    Maybe someone here can help me out.  

  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2016
    @coleman  but for now you can derive any part into your part studio. 
  • colemancoleman OS Professional Posts: 244 PRO
    @_Dave_ we haven't had much luck working with derived parts (or sketches for that matter).

    For derived parts....it drops them in at the origin and then we are supposed to translate them around?  Create mates and then translate based on the mates.....which begs the original question: why are ps and assemblies different entities?   

  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    Coleman, I agree that a drag manipulator handle would be nice in a part studio. But for your defined case your could simple export the assembly as a parasolid and import back into a part studio where all the parts would be in there appropriate position. From that you can design your motor mount and insert it back into the assembly.
  • colemancoleman OS Professional Posts: 244 PRO
    edited March 2016
    @_Dave_ Yea...look I get what you are saying but I am struggling with user adoption of onshape.  The people who give me pushback would say what you proposed is a "work around."  Im 100% for onshape....I think it is the best thing since sliced bread....and I know the future is really going to be awesome with onshape.  

    Im sure there is a perfectly good reason why assemblies and ps are separate.  I just cannot articulate to my team a good reason why when they bring this as an objection to onshape.  

    It just seems we should be able to import parts (take a bearing for example) into onshape ps so we can design around that standard part.  Currently we go from looking up specifications for standard parts...back to ps to model...back to more specifications...then into an assembly...insert model + standard part.  Then when we need to continue modeling....back to the ps BUT there is a gaping hole where the bearing should be in the ps.  

    EDIT: Additionally- when I import a bearing into onshape....a new part studio is created for the uploaded bearing.  Then I have to go create a new assembly to group the bearing components...so I can then import the bearing subassembly into a main assembly.  It seems like we should be able to group the bearing components from the part studio....allowing us to skip the step of creating an assembly for this component.  

    It seems this approach would decrease the ever growing number of tabs across the bottom of the screen. 
  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    @coleman I hear ya, I'm having issues with getting Onshape adopted at the workplace also. Sure it's just a matter of time. Good luck and hang in there.
    _Dave_
  • colemancoleman OS Professional Posts: 244 PRO
    edited March 2016
    It would just be very helpful if we could:
    • Import a derived multi-body part into a part studio (bearing for example) 
    • Move the derived part with drag handles 
    • Apply a group mate to the derived components (or the ability to import a derived assembly). 
    • Mate the derived component.  Even if it is just a fastened mate.  We could then change the mate type later in the assembly. 
    There are big gaps in the multi-part design studios when working with imported standard components (that contain multiple parts). 
  • _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    +1 for drag handles in partstudio.
  • OpenR2OpenR2 OS Professional Posts: 188 ✭✭✭
    I have been using the part studios for "sub assemblies" that are designed in context ... where all the components are being matured to a design together and they effect each other in terms of MDO. I then drop these "sub assemblies" into the overall design assembly. I had the same question at first, not quite sure how to take advantage of the two contexts, but the MDO paradigm, is working for us so far.
  • colemancoleman OS Professional Posts: 244 PRO
    @robert_Jackson what is MDO?
  • OpenR2OpenR2 OS Professional Posts: 188 ✭✭✭
    edited September 2016
    Multi Discipline Optimization .... A set of parts that individually can be optimized but those optimizations might not necessarily be the best average optimizations for the group of parts working together.
Sign In or Register to comment.