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.

Part vs Part Studio

adrian_vlzkzadrian_vlzkz Member Posts: 248 PRO
edited December 2016 in Product Feedback
I have a good understanding now of how Onshape does Parts, BUT... I'm having trouble explaining to our SW users how Onshape is structure compared to SolidWorks or other CAD packages. I think it would be a lot more intuitive to rename Parts (Bodies, if you come form SWX)  or the "Part Studio".

Building Parts inside Parts is traditionally asking for trouble  :s , I understand that is not the case here, but for new users it turns on a red flag automatically.

Maybe if either the Part Studio is referred as "Component Studio/Tab" or the Parts themselves as Components or "Pieces" in a Part Studio, it would be a lot less confusing for new users.


Adrian V. | Onshape Ambassador
CAD Engineering Manager

Comments

  • bruce_williamsbruce_williams Member, Developers Posts: 842 PRO
    @adrian_velazquez - you bring up a real challenge about intangible issues.  I look at it more from the 'human nature' side; Kind of philosophical.  I too face lots of resistance from some but also little or none from others.  It is not about what we call things per se; it is about unwillingness to change even for the better.  If one honestly looks at the function advantages, adjusts to the 'words', and is open to the best ways, then new simple clear words will be great.  "Parts Studio" clearly states what the tab is.  And it holds "Parts".   I have found it works to be patient.  Some come after they see others succeeding; others are open once the function advantages are demonstrated. 
    www.accuratepattern.com
  • adrian_vlzkzadrian_vlzkz Member Posts: 248 PRO
    edited December 2016
    @bruce_williams, not facing resitance at all, everyone is excited about giving Onshape a Go. Like I said this is more about making easier and intuitive to grasp the concept of not working or worrying about files(part files)
    Adrian V. | Onshape Ambassador
    CAD Engineering Manager
  • ArmindiloArmindilo Member Posts: 31 ✭✭
    I don't think you will ever get everyone to agree on naming conventions. Like you, I came from a SW background, and I'll admit it took a little while to get used to Parts vs Bodies, and building multiple Parts in the same file also felt unnatural. I don't think changing the names however will make a large difference in users' transition experience.
  • PeteYodisPeteYodis Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 515
    @adrian_velazquez Dave gave a fantastic summary here.  There is also nothing stopping you from only modeling one part per part studio if it feels more comfortable for your workflows.  Of course you could also only contain 1 part or 1 assembly per document as well.  Or your document can contain as many part studios and assembly studios as you desire, as well.  Onshape is really flexible here - it's up to you to decide how you want to proceed with your data and workflows.  
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,470 PRO
    edited December 2016
    I'm still a bit confused with myself what to create into single document - I haven't been able to make my mind to create 'standard workflow'. I'm always struggling with myself whether to add more stuff in existing doc or create a new one. Luckily we can move stuff around these days.
    The problem is similar to creating perfect folder stucture with traditional cad.

    I suppose it wouldn't harm if Onshape would create example guide on how to divide stuff into docs, studios, etc..

    ps. There are several reasons for changes in my workflow: of course first going pro with no limits on amount of docs, updates like linked docs, tab folders etc.. And I'm sure configurations will turn my world upside down once again..
    //rami
  • adrian_vlzkzadrian_vlzkz Member Posts: 248 PRO
    edited December 2016
    Thanks everyone for your comments. There's a reason I didn't put this as an ER, it's just feedback based on what I've experienced personally and from introducing Onshape to a few of our users.

    My concern is that currently version control is applied at the Document level so multiple Part Studios that have multiple "Parts" don't sound like the best idea for our environment. Like @3dcad mentioned, some guidelines on that is the preferred or designed approach would help.
    Adrian V. | Onshape Ambassador
    CAD Engineering Manager
  • PeteYodisPeteYodis Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 515
    edited December 2016
    @adrian_velazquez I want to point out that you can now insert parts into an assembly studio in a workspace from a version inside the same document.  This was previously only possible with a linked document workflow:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw-OB1RKUVA


Sign In or Register to comment.