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.
Let me tell you about an Oshape classroom train wreck
![brian_brady](https://profiles.onshape.com/4ed372f99c16f7284b1741e160ed48095505dc72d3c89b826be604491e02cadc.png)
So I've jumped on the OS bandwagon and am using it to teach solid modeling to college juniors in Mechanical Engineering Technology. Previously I've used Creo (and Pro/E prior to the name change). I will still use Creo for FEA in the latter portion of the semester though.
During the first 3 hour lab session I shared a drawing with my class to quickly demonstrate how we could use OS for collaboration and assisting one another. I followed one of the students to show that functionality and everybody seemed pleased, I know I was. The document I shared with them had a part pattern of a small extruded name tag. The tag was 2.5" by 1.5" by 0.03" thick. Each tag had the text "Name:" cut from it with an extrude. I used one sketch for the tag shape and the text and extruded that tag then used a 5x5 part pattern to make enough for everybody. I renamed the parts created by the pattern to match the students' first names and last initial.
I told the students that they were to find their specific part, select the front surface of it, create a sketch with their name, and extrude/cut their name from the tag. This is where the train wreck started. Once 14 students tried to select their parts and make sketches, everybody's system slowed to a crawl while using OS. If anybody hid another part (or parts) to better focus on their own part, those same parts were hidden from view for everybody else. This makes one of Onshape's "advantages" a serious failure in my opinion. If multiple users cannot work within the same Part Studio on different parts, hiding those that are in their way, then don't see how using multi-part Part Studios can work for collaboration. Thus one of the best features of Onshape gets tossed aside.
The train wreck continued when somebody (or multiple somebodies) was able to delete the pattern or the initial extrude and blow the whole Part Studio up for me and everybody else. I could not easily determine who and when this happened by inspecting the history, because multiple people were trying things at the same time and the history items did not relate one to another in a linear fashion. Student one may have added a sketch then the next item in history would not be their extrude but somebody else's sketch or extrude to even a hide or a deletion. One history item stated so-and-so deleted two items, but did not state which items. This seemed to be where the deletion occurred, but it did not track with the items above and below in the history. If I would have rolled the history back to that point, I would have lost a number of edits that other students where essentially doing at the same time.
I ended up having to remove everybody from the share of that document and am still rethinking how I can roll it out again. Ideally I would protect the initial sketch, extrude, and pattern from deletion (at least by everybody but me) and only allow other users to add features to what is there, but I know that ability does not exist in OS.
By the way, after cutting out their names, students were to get 10 extra credit points if they exported their part as STL and took it to our Maker Space to have it 3D printed.
During the first 3 hour lab session I shared a drawing with my class to quickly demonstrate how we could use OS for collaboration and assisting one another. I followed one of the students to show that functionality and everybody seemed pleased, I know I was. The document I shared with them had a part pattern of a small extruded name tag. The tag was 2.5" by 1.5" by 0.03" thick. Each tag had the text "Name:" cut from it with an extrude. I used one sketch for the tag shape and the text and extruded that tag then used a 5x5 part pattern to make enough for everybody. I renamed the parts created by the pattern to match the students' first names and last initial.
I told the students that they were to find their specific part, select the front surface of it, create a sketch with their name, and extrude/cut their name from the tag. This is where the train wreck started. Once 14 students tried to select their parts and make sketches, everybody's system slowed to a crawl while using OS. If anybody hid another part (or parts) to better focus on their own part, those same parts were hidden from view for everybody else. This makes one of Onshape's "advantages" a serious failure in my opinion. If multiple users cannot work within the same Part Studio on different parts, hiding those that are in their way, then don't see how using multi-part Part Studios can work for collaboration. Thus one of the best features of Onshape gets tossed aside.
The train wreck continued when somebody (or multiple somebodies) was able to delete the pattern or the initial extrude and blow the whole Part Studio up for me and everybody else. I could not easily determine who and when this happened by inspecting the history, because multiple people were trying things at the same time and the history items did not relate one to another in a linear fashion. Student one may have added a sketch then the next item in history would not be their extrude but somebody else's sketch or extrude to even a hide or a deletion. One history item stated so-and-so deleted two items, but did not state which items. This seemed to be where the deletion occurred, but it did not track with the items above and below in the history. If I would have rolled the history back to that point, I would have lost a number of edits that other students where essentially doing at the same time.
I ended up having to remove everybody from the share of that document and am still rethinking how I can roll it out again. Ideally I would protect the initial sketch, extrude, and pattern from deletion (at least by everybody but me) and only allow other users to add features to what is there, but I know that ability does not exist in OS.
By the way, after cutting out their names, students were to get 10 extra credit points if they exported their part as STL and took it to our Maker Space to have it 3D printed.
1
Comments
Your blank stays protected.
They each have their own tab, so nothing to hide to get to their work.
They each have their own feature list, so helping with problems is simpler.
Finally when all is sorted move all studios into a folder with the lesson name and date.
Jst thinking out loud.
Owen S
HWM-Water Ltd
Thanks for the input.
1) Work in different branches all derived from a single common version
2) All will work in different part studios in the same workspace, leaving collaboration in a single assembly.
In the case of creating a start part, Have a start part document with your sketches, snapped in a version and share with your team (classroom). Then have them derive a sketch into their part studio as a linked document and start from there. The students could be in one doc, each with their own PS or have them create a new doc named the exercise and have them just reference your version of the start sketch, part etc... This also would work well for any lessons where you are providing some start entity...
We were in same room so we could talk while working but the problem was that every now and then we had to hide each others part to access certain faces.
I know this is not ideal workflow but as it is possible with Onshape - why not if it suits for team/project?
I have requested for local level hide part feature which would only hide part from current workspace (ie. not from assembly / drawings etc..) from single user so others can still see the part.
Twitter: @onshapetricks & @babart1977
I think you are off base here a little. It seems like for your application in the classroom, each student should have a separate tab. This does not negate the advantages of multipart design.
This entire exercise started as a demonstration of the multi-user collaboration capabilities of OS. I was also highlighting that multiple parts can exist in the same "file" unlike most CAD packages and can start from a common reference sketch. This is not how I plan on running other assignments. For team/group projects, the number of users will be more tenable, likely 3 or 4. However, students in teams may decide to use a common Part Studio to model fixed parts that relate to each other and this would happen simultaneously, so they have to know that they cannot hide/show parts as needed if another team member is currently working on another part.
I was not trying to say that there is only one use case, only that the current setup precludes multiple users from independently working on different parts in a single Part Studio if they need to hide/show different parts. For example, designing an assembly line fixture with 50 to 100+ parts in a single (or relatively few) Part Studio makes sense because most of the parts are static and need to relate to each other. After a designer creates the primary driving sketches to set relationships, I can see handing the detail design to more than one detailer. (We did this in my previous life) Once this happens, each designer will need access to each other's most recent parts some of the time and the driving sketches most of the time, but will need to get parts/sketches out of their way or make them visible quite often. Simple if working totally alone with the current methodology. More difficult if they don't have a way to turn off view state propogation between users.
A toggle would be perfect. I think placing it in the part tree might be better. Use the current eye (or Sauron's eye) icon for global visibility and a pair of binoculars or a magnifying glass for local visibility. Make the global setting a user wide switch, this way any user could toggle global show/hide for everybody when performing a review meeting or show/tell.
I don't think any of us can explain how to set up a collaborative environment since it doesn't / hasn't existed before. Your experience is the 1st valid attempt that I've heard about. I'm not sure you're setting it up right when having everyone reference one feature in a part studio. Not sure I'd blame onshape for this. Collaboration will require some form of higher level management, rules or understanding amongst the participants.
I'm excited about 3 engineers working together on a project using one database and not having to sync or copy files around trying to get something designed. I'm sure in any project when all engineers try and work on the same feature, there will be problems. I think in reality with a large project, collaboration will require guidelines and management. I'm sure 2 engineers will never be working in the same sketch at the same time if the architected collaborative environment is correct. That'd piss me off if someone kept moving one of my holes to a location they wanted. It's my hole and it goes here. This isn't collaborating, this is fighting.
I'm trying to understand these collaboration rules and guidelines and waiting for the 1st to tell me how.
I was trying to get Adam @ solidsmack to come up with a good collaborative schema but it never materialized.
Do you want to be famous? Come up with a good use case study showing us how this works and share with us. It's disparately needed. Please don't explain how it doesn't work, but instead, show me how it can work.
After Onshape reaches 'standard professional 3d cad feature set' they have done the easy part, the hard part will be getting big companies to change their system from existing already paid and trained production ready to something completely new - even though Onshape is fresh breeth of air into cad basement, users aren't usually the ones who make the decision for the software choice in bigger companies.
This needs global localized marketing and sales divisions to each country, similar to SW, Inventor etc. That needs B I G money, I hope we still can afford Onshape if / when they go for it.
We all are still early adopters.
Thanks for the comments everybody. I have changed what I do based on suggestions made in this thread.
It'd be nice if the students shared their files with you, and in turn you add them to another part studio then share it back with them. What if they view only share with you? How would you construct your your master part studio so they all know what to do and can assemble their own part studio inside yours.
The ultimate goal is to have 14 students making something better in 1/14 the time. Currently projects are so poorly constructed that half the engineers are cleaning up what the other half do.
What I'm interested in is the top level structure controlling the design yet insuring everyone can get their working done. Controlling referencing between engineers so you don't end up with a rats nest of references. In the beginning, you'll need to provide a project skeleton which establishes datums so engineers know what to hang their designs on. Every project no matter how big it is has a 0, 0, 0 location. Where is it?
Orchestrating this will be very similar to a conductor conducting an orchestra. It's not trivial by any means and not currently being practiced in industry.
No body pays attention to these details, even the crappy file base systems, someone needs to show us the way.
It tends to be forgotten among all software that it is not the goal to be able to make something in a new way - the goal is to make something easier and more efficient.
Do you think Onshape needs some sort of higher level management console to be able to control group of designers?
Efficient team work will be interesting area of development / discussion..
Try this:
Have an assembly open that has each student's name tag laid out. (project that assembly on the big screen for everyone to see (if you have one) otherwise have them keep another tab open with the assembly and go split screen.
As students modify their name tags, you will see the assembly updating.
Now half way through the process, make a change to the name tag they are deriving. Like add a punch hole to the top, or change it's color.
They should all see the name tag update while they are working on their parts, as well as see all the name tags updating in the assembly.
To be honest, hind sight would suggest having multiple copies of the name tag in the same studio would be bad practice anyway. In the real world perhaps you may have tried configurations, or derive after a while. I know I started using derives more when making similar parts for my projects. As long as your base part is simple enough, it doesn't affect performance.
But remember, like all CAD packages, if you make a dramatic change early on in the tree, you could dereference all your student's sketches, which it sounds like that happened when someone modified the original extrude.
Which could be a great opportunity for them to learn WHY they should always be aware of the tree, and understand how face ID's and entities are created and destroyed.