Tutorial on workflow for Part Studios?

michael3424

I'm running into frustrations trying to use Part Studios and assume I'm just not tuned into how they are intended to work when designing parts for an assembly.  Is there a tutorial, video, or webinar that goes into the workflow in some detail?

I'm doing a bottom up design for parts that will eventually go into a moderately complex assembly, mostly to learn how to use OnS.  Should each part be designed in its own Studio or should one Studio be used to create a collection of parts?  Maybe a better question would be when to use either approach.

I've put several parts in one Studio and they are all designed with the origin at their center.  I hide all but the part that I am working on but underlying geometry in other parts is starting to confuse me and in one case a Remove Extrude on one part changed features in another part.  None of the parts designed thusfar are related to the other parts so putting them in their own Studios might make more sense, but there will be 70 or more parts to design and that seems like a lot of Studios to wade through.

Mike

jakeramsley

Hi Mike,

When I am designing something in Onshape, I tend to design things in context in a single part studio up to the point that I could make a sub-assembly.  This gives me the ability to design things in context, use features to generated shared geometry across parts, but at the same time make the feature list and the tabs a bit more manageable to me.  As you implied, this can be a double edge sword where I designed two parts with a single feature and then later on need to break the relationship of the two parts from one another but I think by and large it is a beneficial way of designing.

Can you give a bit more context of what you are designing?  This will help others give suggestions on how they'd approach the design.  I am reluctant to give a "one size fits all" definition of how to use part studios because I think there isn't one and it is our job to deliver software with enough flexibility to let you work designing in a way that makes sense to you.  There is nothing inherently wrong with making every part in single part studio, making every part separate in separate part studios, or some where in the middle.  

jakeramsley

Hi Mike,

When I am designing something in Onshape, I tend to design things in context in a single part studio up to the point that I could make a sub-assembly.  This gives me the ability to design things in context, use features to generated shared geometry across parts, but at the same time make the feature list and the tabs a bit more manageable to me.  As you implied, this can be a double edge sword where I designed two parts with a single feature and then later on need to break the relationship of the two parts from one another but I think by and large it is a beneficial way of designing.

Can you give a bit more context of what you are designing?  This will help others give suggestions on how they'd approach the design.  I am reluctant to give a "one size fits all" definition of how to use part studios because I think there isn't one and it is our job to deliver software with enough flexibility to let you work designing in a way that makes sense to you.  There is nothing inherently wrong with making every part in single part studio, making every part separate in separate part studios, or some where in the middle.  

michael3424

Hi Jake,

I have paper drawings for this model Otto-Langen IC engine:

http://www.star-techno.com/images/la4.gif

and decided that it would be a good way to start learning how to use OnS since the dimensions and design are essentially done so all I need to do is figure out to translate part dimensions into OnS parts and once that is done create sub-assemblies and then a final engine assembly.  I've just started randomly creating parts in OnS with no regard to how one part gets oriented or mated to another.  It seems like one or two parts per Part Studio makes more sense here since my short-term goal is proficiency in part design and I'm following what may be called a bottom up design approach.

FWIW, my current CAD program is GeoMagic at which I'm mostly self-taught.  I've probably learned some bad design habits with that and would like to avoid doing the same with OnS.   For someone like me, a tutorial or webinar that shows the advantages/disadvantages of the one vs many parts per Parts Studio could be a real productivity booster, down the road.

Mike

michael3424

I came across the "Advantages of Part Studios and Assemblies" webinar and that helped clarify things quite a bit in my mind.

https://www.onshape.com/videos/twio-advantages-of-part-studios-and-assemblies

Tomorrow's webinar on "Designing in OnShape" should be interesting.

Mike

kenan_2

Hi,  

You can check this video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48QuOQKXZTg

This is  one of the options to build model in OS .
First make defined sketch, make 3D model in Part Studio then go to Assembly and start moving parts.

michael3424

Thanks Keenan.  That helps clarify things.

Mike