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.

Let's talk about assemblies

Ben_MisegadesBen_Misegades Member Posts: 133 ✭✭✭
Rather than making improvement requests about some of this stuff, I'd be curious to hear other people's feedback on some of these assembly-related items:

1. Mating. So far, mating things in an assembly has presented itself as a bit of a headache.
  • There is no real option to use Planes to mate, which in my experience is probably the best way to mate parts and subassemblies to each other as they are completely independent from geometry. 
  • It is currently not possible to create assembly-level sketches, which means if you want sketch-driven assembly mates, you have to create a separate part that contains any sketches you may want to use. While this works, it seems like an extra step to take that ought not be necessary.
  • Mate connectors are an interesting idea, and I'm sure that I will 'unlock' more of their capabilities the more that I use them, but I don't feel like they should completely replace "traditional" mating. I was just trying to mate two parts together using a sketch line from one part and a sketched arc from the other part, and I just can't get it to work, OS doesn't seem to want me to connect to the arc itself, but rather only the center point of that arc. I am 100% open to the possibility of me simply not doing it right, but if there is a correct way to do this in OS, it sure isn't presenting itself very readily.
2. Insertion of parts and assemblies
  • So far I haven't figured out an easy way to quickly place multiple instances of a part into my assembly. From the "Insert Parts and Assemblies" interface it seems I have to pick an item, place it, pick an item again, place it, etc. There also doesn't seem to be a way to quickly grab a part that's already placed in your assembly and insert another, either from the tree or from the actual modeling area. Ctrl-drag a la Solidworks, for example.
  • Inserting parts with or without sketches. My mind can't quite wrap itself around the concept that I can pull a part into an assembly, but then not have access to sketches that created the geometry of that part. If I tick the option to insert the sketches of that part as well, the sketches are not constrained to that part unless I group the sketch with its part.
3. Access to planes and sketches. Tying in with the above, not having easy access to the sketches and planes of parts or subassemblies while working in an assembly is really frustrating. Again, I'm used to the way Solidworks works, and while I realize that OS is not Solidworks, I feel that this is something OS really needs.

4. Manipulation of inserted parts and assemblies. How do I rotate inserted parts and assemblies? Once I've inserted a new component into my assembly, it is free to be dragged around the screen but its orientation in regard to XYZ axis seems locked in place and only changes when a mate causes it to. Am I missing something?

What are other users' thoughts?

Comments

  • robert_morrisrobert_morris OS Professional, Developers Posts: 166 PRO
    There are still a few corner cases where the Onshape mates may not be ideal, but overall once you get used to them, I think they work really well.

    You can add offsets to mates and mate connectors, so one thing you could try is to position a mate connector where you would want a plane. Then you can mate to that point using a 'fixed', 'planar', or other type, and apply any offsets, rotations, etc. the same way you would a plane. You can also mate to the origin, so you can mate with offsets, etc. to there as well.

    As far as placing multiple instances into an assembly, if you click on the part multiple times in the insert dialog, it will put in one instance for each click. The only problem is it places them all on top of each other. You can also copy/paste parts using ctrl-c/ctrl-v or a mouse right-click. The 'Replicate' tool can be really useful for things like bolts, that may help you save some time for some cases.

    If you need to rotate or position parts, click on the part once and you should see the triad manipulator on the screen. You can then use that to move the part any way you want. Once you start moving it with the manipulator, it also allows you to enter in a precise value for the movement.


  • Ben_MisegadesBen_Misegades Member Posts: 133 ✭✭✭
    @billy2 I had to go and look at this "manipulator" thing to see what you were talking about. The triad in SW was something I never ever used, and now seeing a similar thing in OS, I probably won't use it much, either. Yes, it does allow me to reposition parts or subassemblies, but it's a little clumsier than simply RMB rotating like in SW (for me, at least)

    In regard to you saying SW didn't get assemblies right, I can't make much comment as I don't know how other packages go about assemblies. SW assemblies, for the most part, worked quite well for me, but I don't have much of anything to compare to.

    As to comments regarding part studios vs. incontext vs. derived, I haven't said anything yet because I haven't messed around with those enough yet to formulate a good opinion. From looking at incontext and derived parts, what it accomplishes isn't much different than what I'm used to doing in SW, it just goes about it in a different way. I don't think any of them are a big deal, honestly, but I'll withhold actual opinions until I've played with them.

    As was also explained by @robert_morris in regard to instances, I simply wasn't aware of how to do it the OS way, so I thank you both for the explanations.


  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 2,014 PRO
    Ben- Sorry I'm not picking on you, you just asked some simple basic questions.

    I'm a little touchy about putting assemblies/projects together.

    The "tri-ball" was the 1st triad and tri-spectives tried to copy right it. They couldn't copyright it. Now everyone has a triad. OS's is very good.

    Give the manipulator a chance, it works really well.

    The RMB spins about the screen coordinates which is related to the way you're looking at the model. The manipulators works about known axis and rotates in a knowing fashion. I know this is a weak argument for spinning using the manipulator but it's best I can come with.

    OS is different and it needs to be, give it a chance.


  • Ben_MisegadesBen_Misegades Member Posts: 133 ✭✭✭
    @billy2 I do apologize if I came across defensively, that was not my intention. Rather, since my prior experience lies really only with SW but not other major packages, I've developed in a bit of a vacuum. That's why I say that SW assemblies worked well for me, but then again, I don't really have anything to compare them to.

    The reason I'm not too keen about using the triad manipulator is simply because, at least for the type of work I usually do, it's too slow of a method. Pretty much all of my previous CAD work has been under a huge amount of pressure time-wise, so I've come to appreciate every second that I can shave off while modeling. Picking an axis or plane on the manipulator triad -> too slow. Setting up mate connectors to do the simplest (in my mind) of mates -> too slow. Having to create an additional part studio with sketches rather than using an assembly-level sketch -> too slow. Ad infinitum.

    All that having been said, I realize full well that OS is not SW, and I shouldn't expect it to be, I just need to learn how to be as efficient with OS as I am with SW. That's why I haven't made improvement requests for all of this stuff because a fair amount of it isn't necessarily going to be an issue with other users.

    I was more keen to see what other people's opinions are, as well as see if I'm simply "doing it wrong" which, as has already been proven, is sometimes the case.
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,470 PRO
    In my experience as former Alibre/Geomagic user, using mate connectors reduces time spent on assemblies a lot once you grow into them and the complete design in your head uses mate connectors rather than traditional mates. One big advantage is that mates can be added into sub-assy but also additionally into main assembly.
    For example I can mate fully functional 6-ax robot into sub-assy and narrow down DOF's in main assembly to be able to simulate the movement.

    @ben_misegades435
    Have you already mastered with multi-part studios? If there are parts that are static relative to each other, you can create them directly in their position in single part studio and insert whole module into assembly with single click and add one group mate to glue them together. This is real time saver compared to creating parts one by one and using assembly + mates to attach them together. 
    //rami
  • Ben_MisegadesBen_Misegades Member Posts: 133 ✭✭✭
    @3dcad Rami, I wouldn't say that I've completely "mastered" anything in OS, same as I wouldn't say I've completely "mastered" anything in SW, even though I've a decade of experience with that  :)

  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,470 PRO
    yep, me neither - examined might be better word =) I still think my self as beginner even though years have gone so fast that it feels like yesterday when I begun using Solid Edge back in year 2000.. 
    //rami
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 2,014 PRO
    edited February 2017


    Learning a new CAD system is frustrating.

    In OS build very simple stuff, a 4 bar linkage, a handle something trivial. Crawl before you run.

    As 3dcad mentioned, if nothing in your design moves, start with a partstudio. Did you ever use multi-body parts in SW? Partstudios will be more important in OS than multi-body parts are in SW. I'm hoping they'll be part of the project flow.








  • Ben_MisegadesBen_Misegades Member Posts: 133 ✭✭✭
    @billy2 Yes, I used multi-body parts in SW quite heavily, particularly for sheetmetal constructions.

    The problem I had with multi-body parts in SW was how to implement part numbering etc. smoothly, from the looks of things OS will handle this in a better manner. Like you, I'm hoping that part studios will play a greater role in project flows.
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 2,014 PRO
    Ben- these are the things that need to be worked out. Ever use virtual assemblies? they're worse than multi-body parts.

    I have a friend de-composing all the multi-body parts into parts and it's destroying the assemblies and drawings. You can't tell me that system is whole.

    Ever checked out an assembly from a vault and it regenerates. Oh my God! What happened! This has been fixed here. Once you version, it's immutable, it won't change. Small things make big differences.

    I've built a lot of projects in many parametric systems and it needs improvement.

    Pro/E was the best. It was impossible for most to do, but it was very organized and very structured. The problem was that very few could do it. I ran the Pro/e users group in southern california for 4 years and it's all we talked about. I'm not saying this is where we need to go, because few could figure it out.

    Setting up a project to get the needed data out, controlling the structure and allowing changes and supporting down stream processes is what a well constructed project should do.

    This is beyond how to puttng 2 parts together in an assembly. It's way out of the scope of your original question. But this is the conversation we should be having.

    To me it's more than assemblies, it's about the projects and how assemblies, partstudios, drawings, BOMs, purchased parts, fabricated parts .....  all work together.

    One critical aspect of a project is how to allow multiple engineers to work together? Each gets their own assembly right? Then this rolls into a top assembly right? Then you flutter all this through a vault and everything becomes unglued right?







    For prismatic parts & assemblies, Currently Onshape is superior to Solidworks.

    Stick with it, I think you'll find this to be true.






  • Ben_MisegadesBen_Misegades Member Posts: 133 ✭✭✭
    @billy2 I haven't dug that deep into OS yet :)
  • daniel_poulterdaniel_poulter Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
    Hi,

    The problem with assemblies are that they are called assemblies! This means when migrating from other CAD packages, most people assume they are for showing how parts fit together. In OS they are really for showing the motion between parts (or I believe that was OS's original concept......), they should really be called something else, like motion study to encourage people do all design work in a part studio. Unfortunately using derived parts in part studios is much more clunky than doing so in an assembly so . 

    I wait for a future where i can design everything in a part studio (for something that has no motion) with the benefit of the easy mating from assembly for derived parts (rather than the current workflow -> add derived, add mate connectors, move by mate connectors )




  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,470 PRO
    I don't derive unless that part is needed for reference to another part - and now we have in context editing so I'm not sure if derive is good alternative to assembly functions. I would use derive probably for creating molds around piece or something, I haven't derived anything after linked docs came which changed the game with assemblies.

    Assembly still is assembly, part studio parts are not mated together if used in higher level assembly so I suppose we all have our own best practices to divide stuff between part studios, sub- and main assemblies according to what is being modeled.

    @daniel_poulter At some point I have asked why there is assemblies in first place, I got response from Onshape and this was discussed in the very beginning. The reason is robustness, they wanted to have unbreakable assemblies - and now we have those =)
    Here is the link for the discussion https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/1981/multi-part-studios-in-assemblies

    //rami
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 2,014 PRO
    daniel-

    You are absolutely, 100%, amazingly, superior, insightfully correct.

    Ok, now how do we make it work?


  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,470 PRO
    @billy2
    Didn't we already figure that out? I thought we did, the only problem was that there was only two of us without the need for separate assembly and drawings module - now the group has grown to three - that's 50% growth!

    Maybe Onshape 2.0?
    //rami
  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 2,014 PRO
    part studios, assemblies, derived parts, in-context design, master model, multi-body, virtual assemblies, bottom up, top down.....

    I feel sorry for the guy just starting out.
Sign In or Register to comment.