Section view tol stack

John_Carver

Can I create section views then annotate for use in tol stacks? Then maybe save for later reference 

3dcad

Check out the thread about section view development:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/134/how-can-we-make-section-views-awesome-in-onshape/p1

billy2

telmon, I would really like to see saved views with annotations. I prefer saved views over drawings.

please add me to this request.

3dcad

@billy It's nice to hear I'm not the only one who would be satisfied with decent 3d view / prints. I hate the fact that I need to do double work first 3d and then clomsy 2D for drawings. It would be enough to have dimensions visible and movable + wireframe view with only visible edges and white background for prints in 3d space. 
Maybe OS could be the first cad to bury separate 2D drawings and maybe have a button to export live dwg for those who like. Most likely DraftSight is already better for 2D than OS will ever need to create? 

+1 for saved views over drawings

billy2

3dcad, OMG, I have a tear coming, you're absolutely right.

If we ever get together at some OS rally, the 1st round is on me,

david_sohlstrom

@3dcad  I need 2D drawings that I can take to the shop and make parts on my manual machines. I do not own an Ipad or Iphone so that will not work. I need to produce a 2D drawing that I can print locally and take to the shop.
 If I remember correctly you are a Alibre/Geomagic user. You know that with just a few key strokes GM will give you 2D drawings with all the views you need. You also know that you can then dimension the drawing the way you want, print it and take it to the shop.

This is what I need with OS

Dave

3dcad

@billy  Be aware, I have memory of an elephant 

@David_Sohlstrom12345 According to your description, you don't need traditional 2D Drawings made in some historic way. You just need certain 2D prints from your 3D model with visible dimensions to be able to produce them, correct?

For some reason those 'few keystrokes' in GD to create 2D drawings for production tend to use more time than I have spent on actual modeling. In 3D, everything is just so easy - it's not like I don't need 2D drawings, I just don't need the clomsy 2D editor to create them.
I'm actually using more and more just screenshots from 3D and sketch environment for our own production. 
Of course formal documents can't be done this way, but again export live dwg (updating when model changes) should serve better those people than some left-hand-made 2D mode.

billy2

3dcad
good, sounds like we'll become good friend.

david_sohlstrom

@3dcad  Yes I 3D model all my parts. Then tell GD I need 2D drawings of the parts that I print and take to the shop. I also no longer draw parts using a 2D CAD software.

Dave

michael3424

I do the same as Dave and need (or prefer) 2D drawings for the shop, even though most parts are made with CNC.  In most cases I need to manually machine rough stock to size and drawings are useful for that.  The drawings also get filed for the next time those parts need to be machined and many clients stipulate hard copies of the drawings.

Mike

andrew_troup

It seems to me that those who never require 2D drawings should not dictate to those who do require them, by putting pressure on developers to omit that capability.

For one thing, 2D drawings are the only truly future-proof output format; that alone is sufficient to make the capability essential.

3dcad

@Andrew_Troup I don't think there is that many users 'who never require 2D drawings' - it's just about the way you create them.. Or do you mean that OnS needs an actual 2D drawing module to be able to design in 2D without using 3D model as a base?

At this point it's great wisdom to keep eyes wide open for new approaches and not just rebuild solid works.
Normal 'double work' cads with separate 2D can be found in every price class so it's not about preventing people from doing their work if OnS would choose another route. It's way better to wait another year to get this into active production use than repeat same old stuff in hurry to be stuck with for next 10 years. 

Can someone 'married to drawings' comment could it be possible to do your 2D work like this:
Work in part studio or assy, turn model in wanted position, select visible dimensions, add annotations, hole callouts, detailed/section view and other stuff, then click save view.
It would create a block which could be placed on print template or just quickly printed straight from workspace.
My main idea would be to work in the same environment where you design and push views to prints rather than beginning from blank screen after finished modeling and start importing stuff, adding dimensions again, selecting views by turning model 90 degrees rather than using mouse or standard views 'cube'...
Of course this would need much more thinking than copying the best of current cads drawings, but I think OnS people have already showed us they can do something else than others. This is just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong?

andrew_troup

@3dcad

The problem I have with your proposal is that the needs of the human interpreting a drawing are usually very different from the needs of the person building a model.
 
The implications are numerous, but one is that the same dimensions (eg between the same points) are often simply not suitable for these two parties. And even if they are, they will generally be in the wrong location, or visible from the wrong view.

It is not always feasible to rectify this at the end of the modelling process, by redistributing and reassigning dimensions, because the model needs to continue to be able to be revised. This is a big topic I cannot do justice to here, but it's one reason why many users do not find automatic creation of drawing dimensions from the model to be useful or even usable. 

Incidentally, I don't understand your implication that Solidworks is detrimentally slanted towards 2D. For many years, their 2D output was clearly an afterthought, and a badly implemented one.

I can see merit in aspects of your proposition to generate drawings from within model space, for instance it would be nice if the ways of assigning views in a model were aligned with the ways of doing it in a drawing. This can be done in Solidworks by assigning views, BTW, but it is clunky purely because of the two-environment problem you identify. 

Your proposal might fly if we were enabled to toggle the dimensioning schema of a model between one for modelling (input oriented), and one intended for drawing (output oriented). It would certainly be advantageous to put a major effort into streamlining the creation of drawings. And I agree that dimensioned 3D views can be useful in some situations. 

- - - 
This is not aimed at any particular poster, but at the prevalent notion that 2D drawings no longer have relevance (as well as narrower notions, such as "all tolerances should be symmetric"):

Those who are building intake grids and machinery housings for a hydro dam, or terminal stations for an aerial tram, or interior fitouts for a production sailboat, have rather different needs from those running a CNC machine or a 3D printer.

2D drawings provide a generic language with a very wide degree of applicability, and that makes them sub-optimal to some players in narrower fields. Everyone is free to develop their specialised language for a particular field, but they need to recognise that there may be show-stopping limitations which prevent their language from having more general application. The global optimum can never be the sum of local optima, and engineering will continue to need a single "lingua franca".

3dcad

@Andrew_Troup I think we have mutual goal - same output as drawings but with less work.