Part vs Part Studio

adrian_vlzkz

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  , 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.

bruce_williams

@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. 

adrian_vlzkz

@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)

Armindilo

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.

Dave_Corcoran

One way to explain it is that Onshape extends the power of parametric feature based modeling to a collection of interrelated parts driven by a single parametric history.  In traditional CAD systems, you often have to create several similar histories for each part - because one part file has one history that drives one part.  That part can then be instanced multiple times in multiple assemblies.  But the power of parametric modeling is restricted to one part at a time - and when you want ot make changes to interrelated parts - you have to go back and change several histories in different files.

In Onshape, one Part Studio has one parametric history that can drive many parts.  And those parts are really parts - that can be naturally instanced multiple times in multiple assemblies.  In the assembly they can move relative to one and other - whereas in multi-body parts in traditional systems - the bodies are rigid relative to one and other.

So as @bruce_williams says, the terminology Onshape uses accurately defines how Onshape is different and better. In traditional cad systems, the use of the term body is also accurate - because they aren't parts and cannot be instanced in assemblies.

PeteYodis

@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.  

3dcad

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..

adrian_vlzkz

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.

PeteYodis

@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