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.

how does splitting work with the timeline?

henry_feldmanhenry_feldman Member Posts: 112 EDU
A little unclear if splitting is supposed to respect time. SO in the example below, I initially cut the big blue part with the plane you see with the purple arrow. Initially those side tabs with the green arrows were added after the split, and were extruded inside the split. The client then asked those tabs to farther out, and so I edited the extrude (which is way below the split) and changed the length to what you see below. It made each tab a separate part (which I could successfully boolean back together). Now that all seems inconsistent, if the split doesn't respect the timeline, then the boolean should fail, and if it does respect the timeline then it should not have made separate parts. Unless I totally misunderstand the concept. Any ideas?



Tagged:

Best Answer

Answers

  • TimRiceTimRice Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 218
    If you could, sharing a link to the document would be very helpful.
    Tim Rice | User Experience | Support 
    Onshape, Inc.
  • henry_feldmanhenry_feldman Member Posts: 112 EDU
    timrice said:
    If you could, sharing a link to the document would be very helpful.
    @timrice
    it is now shared with support. The specific split plane is the Right Split Plane, and boolean1 is where I had to repair that edit as above
  • TimRiceTimRice Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 218
    If you wish to share with Onshape Support please submit a ticket from within the document to expedite the process.
    Tim Rice | User Experience | Support 
    Onshape, Inc.
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers Posts: 1,300 PRO
    Henry-

    I don't think you have to split these tabs, move them, and reconnect them.

    By timeline, I think you're talking about the sequence of operations in the feature manager? I would refer to this as the order of the features as opposed to the timeline. 

    With a parametric modeler, to extend your tabs, you should edit the sketch that made the tabs in the 1st place. In that sketch there should be a dimension that specifies the tab length. If there isn't then your design intent is off and you have to change it to allow this change.

    Once Tim gets access, I'm interested in the answer. I'm not clear about the question.



  • henry_feldmanhenry_feldman Member Posts: 112 EDU
    billy2 said:
    Henry-

    I don't think you have to split these tabs, move them, and reconnect them.

    By timeline, I think you're talking about the sequence of operations in the feature manager? I would refer to this as the order of the features as opposed to the timeline. 

    With a parametric modeler, to extend your tabs, you should edit the sketch that made the tabs in the 1st place. In that sketch there should be a dimension that specifies the tab length. If there isn't then your design intent is off and you have to change it to allow this change.

    Once Tim gets access, I'm interested in the answer. I'm not clear about the question.



    What you are describing is exactly what I expected to happen (and with other operations does); I never expected to have to boolean, which is why I posted, since I suddenly was left with parts I was not expecting. I am specifically citing that split appears to not be parametric in the traditional sense. Yes, but timeline is way, way, way easier than "sequence of operations in the feature manager" and figured everyone could guess what I meant.
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers Posts: 1,300 PRO
    edited December 2016
    Tim needs to look at what's going on. Split should behave like all other features. If it doesn't, then it's a bug.

    Timeline, sorry, don't mean to be rude. I used to teach this stuff and I felt naming/terminology was important, at least I use to think so.

    The feature tree has order and history but it doesn't have time. How can it have history without a timeline? I don't know I'm probably going to lose this discussion.




    Do you teach kids how to use CAD?


  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers Posts: 1,300 PRO
    edited December 2016
    Working with split:




    Split with  plane produces 17 bodies, seems right (works):





    Split with surface (sketch has a line in it):






    Surface is analytic due to line entity in sketch. Analytic faces behave as planes. (FYI split with surface is different in SW):





    Switch line to spline in sketch:


    The surface is still an analytic face even using a spline as it's constructor. In geometry there are no lines everything's a curve, in this case a straight curve:




    Ok so make the spline nonlinear:




    Ok, this is what I wanted in the 1st place. Split with parametric surface (works):


    Now make the spline linear again:





    And were back to an analytic face (works?):



    I don't think this is the problem, but it's interesting. When splitting with a surface, I'd like the split to be bound by the displayed surface, not analytical representations.

    This isn't the issue here, I'm interested to see how this pans out,

  • henry_feldmanhenry_feldman Member Posts: 112 EDU
    Again - none of us here can see the document so this is all supposition on our part. 
    Yeah, sorry. I'll see if I can make it on a second document, since this part is not sharable due to licensing.
Sign In or Register to comment.