Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- 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.
Power Surfacing for Onshape
kevin_quigley
Member Posts: 306 ✭✭✭
After a discussion on Twitter I decided to try the Power Surfacing Onshape workflow.
I'll be honest and say that my use of Onshape has dropped considerably in recent months. I was a (very) early tester of Onshape and did put in a lot of time and thought into those early phases. We are not on the Pro plan and are very unlikely to be on the Pro plan for some time as right now Onshape does not do what we would need it to do to come anywhere near replacing our 2 seats of SolidWorks, 1 seat of Fusion 360 and 2 seats of Rhino + Tsplines. But let's not get into that right now.
What I was interested in was the marketing of the Onshape+Power Surfacing package. You see I am also a Power Surfacing for SolidWorks user, so I know the app and I know the pros and cons of Power Surfacing vs TSplines. Again, we were very early testers for Power Surfacing and we bought into it at version 1. But we rarely use it these days, again for reasons that are relevant to this thread as they relate to the quality of that software.
The claim on twitter was that Power Surfacing was free for 20 surfaces. My point was that this was otherwise known as a workflow trial. Joe came back with a screenshot showing a wild organic blob that came in under 20 surfaces. Fair point. If you design organic blobs. We don't tend to do that. We design parts that have to be manufactured, with split lines and draft, and subtle surface effects.
I have attached two screenshots. One shows the surface inside the Cyborg 3D desktop application. The other shows the surface as it appears after "Export to Onshape" and "only the first 20 surfaces are exported". This is not a complex shape. It is a base cylinder with the two loops scaled in and a bottom loop scaled in. You could easily revolve this.Think very simple plastic bottle.
Firstly, the actual workflow to and from Onshape works reasonably well. Import from Onshape works. Export to Onshape works. The authorisation process works OK as well. What doesn't work though is the desktop application. It is a standalone desktop application that IntegrityWare are developing (and will likely sell on the open market soon), with a link to Onshape. Presumably when they launch it you will be able to purchase it and the link to onshape will still be available, much like a plug in in Keyshot or Maxwell Render.
Currently the application, in my very brief testing on a high spec CAD workstation, is nowhere ready for prime time. It really is early beta level. I personally think that charging for something like this is a serious error of judgement likely only to put users off both Onshape and Power Surfacing.
In terms of workflow, you need to consider this as a one way street, from Onshape to Power Surfacing back to Onshape, or from Power Surfacing to Onshape. Onshape, if you really are serious about building this technology into the application then you need to either grow your own technology (Like SolidThinking and Dassault did) or bite the bullet and license it or buy a company like Autodesk did with TSplines.
No doubt I will be blasted for this comment and be told that of course you can use the free version for this and the paid for version is fabulous. Of course some people might be able to but we cannot. I make a living out of doing this stuff - as in designing, not making CAD models fopr 3D printing (which appears to be part of the workflow in Cyborg - presumably for a future standalone version). These are not production quality surfacing tools, these are technology previews. Which is fine. But don't pretend otherwise. Even if we subscribed to it we pay what $720 a year on top of $1200 a year, so pushing $2000 a year for functionality that is built into Fusion or can be purchased with Rhino for less (and it will soon be built into Rhino). For $1200 I can buy Evolve from SolidThinking that does all this and a lot more.
I also don't get the whole Cyborg 3D application. It looks and works like a Windows 2000 app. Half the functions do not work, or work one time then not again. The help is poor or non existent. Onshape really need to ask themselves if they want to build up a partner programme of truly well thought out and well integrated browser applications that really demonstrate the power this platform can offer (and I do believe in it as a future platform). Or, they can choose to tack on any old desktop app with 1001 dodgy interfaces and ways of getting data to and from Onshape.
This is how software is judged. We are in a 5 minute then decide society (if that). It has to be intuitive. It has to be robust and predicable. It has to offer value for money. This is a critical time for Onshape.
I'll be honest and say that my use of Onshape has dropped considerably in recent months. I was a (very) early tester of Onshape and did put in a lot of time and thought into those early phases. We are not on the Pro plan and are very unlikely to be on the Pro plan for some time as right now Onshape does not do what we would need it to do to come anywhere near replacing our 2 seats of SolidWorks, 1 seat of Fusion 360 and 2 seats of Rhino + Tsplines. But let's not get into that right now.
What I was interested in was the marketing of the Onshape+Power Surfacing package. You see I am also a Power Surfacing for SolidWorks user, so I know the app and I know the pros and cons of Power Surfacing vs TSplines. Again, we were very early testers for Power Surfacing and we bought into it at version 1. But we rarely use it these days, again for reasons that are relevant to this thread as they relate to the quality of that software.
The claim on twitter was that Power Surfacing was free for 20 surfaces. My point was that this was otherwise known as a workflow trial. Joe came back with a screenshot showing a wild organic blob that came in under 20 surfaces. Fair point. If you design organic blobs. We don't tend to do that. We design parts that have to be manufactured, with split lines and draft, and subtle surface effects.
I have attached two screenshots. One shows the surface inside the Cyborg 3D desktop application. The other shows the surface as it appears after "Export to Onshape" and "only the first 20 surfaces are exported". This is not a complex shape. It is a base cylinder with the two loops scaled in and a bottom loop scaled in. You could easily revolve this.Think very simple plastic bottle.
Firstly, the actual workflow to and from Onshape works reasonably well. Import from Onshape works. Export to Onshape works. The authorisation process works OK as well. What doesn't work though is the desktop application. It is a standalone desktop application that IntegrityWare are developing (and will likely sell on the open market soon), with a link to Onshape. Presumably when they launch it you will be able to purchase it and the link to onshape will still be available, much like a plug in in Keyshot or Maxwell Render.
Currently the application, in my very brief testing on a high spec CAD workstation, is nowhere ready for prime time. It really is early beta level. I personally think that charging for something like this is a serious error of judgement likely only to put users off both Onshape and Power Surfacing.
In terms of workflow, you need to consider this as a one way street, from Onshape to Power Surfacing back to Onshape, or from Power Surfacing to Onshape. Onshape, if you really are serious about building this technology into the application then you need to either grow your own technology (Like SolidThinking and Dassault did) or bite the bullet and license it or buy a company like Autodesk did with TSplines.
No doubt I will be blasted for this comment and be told that of course you can use the free version for this and the paid for version is fabulous. Of course some people might be able to but we cannot. I make a living out of doing this stuff - as in designing, not making CAD models fopr 3D printing (which appears to be part of the workflow in Cyborg - presumably for a future standalone version). These are not production quality surfacing tools, these are technology previews. Which is fine. But don't pretend otherwise. Even if we subscribed to it we pay what $720 a year on top of $1200 a year, so pushing $2000 a year for functionality that is built into Fusion or can be purchased with Rhino for less (and it will soon be built into Rhino). For $1200 I can buy Evolve from SolidThinking that does all this and a lot more.
I also don't get the whole Cyborg 3D application. It looks and works like a Windows 2000 app. Half the functions do not work, or work one time then not again. The help is poor or non existent. Onshape really need to ask themselves if they want to build up a partner programme of truly well thought out and well integrated browser applications that really demonstrate the power this platform can offer (and I do believe in it as a future platform). Or, they can choose to tack on any old desktop app with 1001 dodgy interfaces and ways of getting data to and from Onshape.
This is how software is judged. We are in a 5 minute then decide society (if that). It has to be intuitive. It has to be robust and predicable. It has to offer value for money. This is a critical time for Onshape.
5
Comments
Reasonable reply. On the 20 surfaces anyway
On $60 per month. While this may be your situation. One where you you need all functionality, every day, 24/7, 360 days a week (no hyperbole). Then the 12x$60 analysis is fair. I don't think most users need this. So the cost is variable, and less. for some a lot less. If you are using it a lot, then you are likely to be willing to pay for it too.
As far as criticizing app store for not showing cloud apps.
There are
- 19 integrated cloud application.
- 2 connected cloud apps
- 9 desktop apps
We believe in a marketplace. Like a Apple or Google, this has proved to be a very good thing for users. If you don't like a app don't use it. If you want everything from one vendor then there are plenty of options. You must hope they maintain innovation, pricing, and momentum. You have been in this market for a long time. I don't think that strategy is a good one.The Onshape App store is what, 5 weeks old? I think it's safe to say there are going to be a lot of new additions, and a lot of improvements. And each product and application can innovate on their own at their own pace. They can rapidly add tools and functionality. So feedback like yours should spur them to do so
Joe
Not to beat a dead horse. But I found your example does work.
If a users is using the free version, then the user does need to be more conscience of the modeling approach . All I did here was reduce the amount of segments in the original Cylinder primitive.
Don't get me wrong, I know you can go easily over the limit. A agree that not knowing ahead of time imposes a usability issue.
On the other hand to imply it's a gimmick is not fair. Each partner must embrace the freemium model in the App Store. I think in this case, the limiting the number of surfaces, is a great example of how to balance letting free users get something useful.
Joe
I also strongly prefer to have core CAD functionality integrated into the main modeling environment. Maybe even integrated into the main Onshape UI. This is how plugins behave in desktop CAD. This is frankly how I expected integrated apps to work.
For me the issue is, that Power Surfacing for Onshape does not provide as smooth of an experience as Power Surfacing for SOLIDWORKS does. Mainly because the workflow is split between 2 entirely separate environments with very different interfaces and terminology. Another drawback with the export/import workflow for design features, is that any associativity or editability is lost in the process. Not saying it can't work for many (I'm sure it does!), but it seems like the workflow is not (yet) as smooth as with desktop CAD.
Consider this a heads-up. I'm sure we will be seeing integrated SubD at some point. I think Onshape will kind of have to support it, as everyone else does already.
www.keyshot.com
The Onshape App Store is a marketplace. The products are developed by independent companies. That is not the same as saying we are relying on them to fulfill core functionality. On the contrary we welcome all products. If there is an App that does something cool and useful, we want them to be available to you.
That is all there is to it.
Think of it this way. How long did it take any existing CAD system to add SubD modeling tools? I will answer the rhetorical question. Many years. With the Onshape App Store, on day one, there was very good capabilities like this available.
I would welcome products that might actually compete with Onshape capabilities. What if they do it better? you win...
Joe
Aerospace Research & Development Group, LLC
www.aerornd.com
CAM is another example. I view CAD and CAM as separate. We already have 30k invested in a CAM package. It would be nice to have an app that directly imports from onshape to our CAM.
I expect our CAD functionality to be integrated into one package- modeling, simulation and animation.
Onshape went outside for drawings and the drawing component is the weakest link in onshape. What onshape develops...it does so wonderfully.
I would rather have fantastic functionality tomorrow than shoddy functionality now.
This is not a knock on the app store, but praise for the onshape development team. What onshape develops really is awesome.
This is where I think a roadmap would be helpful. Something simple and concise. It would be great if we knew where onshape was heading in the future. Even just a list of things you are working on and functionality you plan to implement. When os was in beta there was a "coming soon from onshape....drawings!" video. If we could just have a high-level view of what the plan is.
Apple cloaks everything in a tight vail of secrecy....but they are hardware developers and they dont want to be knocked off by their competitors.
The onshape development team happily accepts your praise
But seriously, a partner app that works today and lets someone get the job done in no way precludes (or takes away resources from) whatever we decide to develop in-house tomorrow. Drawings work a little differently because drawings is not a partner app -- it's a combination of our work and the work of another company.
In terms of a roadmap, we try to avoid that not because we're worried about competitors, but because we don't like vaporware: we use an agile approach and what we develop next is to a large extend driven by customer feedback. In the long run, we expect to do everything our competitors do (in addition to our unique capabilities), so it's just a matter of priorities. Without going into detail, I can tell you that these days we're focused on improving performance, improving the usability with larger designs, improving collaboration / permissions models, sheet metal, improving drawings, and continuing to build up an API. There are also a few "secret" projects. But we're not committing to any dates because we release when ready. And if your favorite missing improvement is not on this list, it could be I forgot to mention it or it could be worked on next week. I realize it's not super-satisfying, but hope it helps somewhat.
Thanks
Joe
I'm hoping their announcement has something to do with this commercial group: The A&D PLM Action Group.
http://www.elysiuminc.com/gpdis/2015/Boeing_KennethSwope_The-Aerospace-And-Defense-PLM-Action-Group_Keynote_Open.pdf
Granted, Onshape isn't PLM per se, but with the online data storage, merging and branching, collaboration, etc. it won't be long until the definition of PLM includes Onshape's functionality -- or Onshape's functionality grows to include PLM functions. If you are heading to GPDIS this year, maybe getting into contact with the folks at Cimdata to see if there is a benefit to Onshape's participation would be a good idea.
Aerospace Research & Development Group, LLC
www.aerornd.com
We accessed the data via the PDX viewer, I would say I wasn't impressed in the least. It was quite convoluted and not user friendly in the least. I spent a lot of time parsing info out of the viewer and creating a bridge for out own needs. Granted we didn't receive training or use the front end so we didn't have the benefit of being "immersed" in the paradigm.
can you build in a warning to inform the user that the edits they are making would result in more than 20 surfaces?
A better solution would be to allow a specific number of free conversions then after this is up you either buy or don't. This way, users can fully test out the system on any model size without worry. This is exactly how the Rhino trial works.
From the free user point of view, I think they either see the value after a set number of conversions or saves, or they don't.
another option is charging per export to Onshape while making the standalone application free.
Good suggestions. And yes, it would be possible to warn the user.
We have posted a new version that has a 50 surface limit for the free version. It also notifies you when you hit the limit.
David