Which features belong to a part in Part Studio, and which mates belong to a part in an assembly

bergdesign

I'm throwing out some thoughts for one of my [few] frustrations with Onshape both in the part studio and in assemblies...

I find it difficult to determine or decipher which features belong to an object in a part studio. Unless I rename features when designing, it's laborious to determine later which features belong to a particular object. When hiding all but one object, for example, features of hidden objects remain visible in the feature list but my expectation is for those features to also be hidden (or dimmed in the list so that they are not selectable) so that I can know at a glance that the still-visible features are related to the visible object. I also expect to be able to right click on a part and have a new action to "Select related features" which would then highlight those features used to construct the part. This latter addition would go a long way to helping quickly decipher a model's feature history.

Likewise in an assembly, I find it difficult to determine which mates are associated with a particular part. I have to mouse-over the mates in the list to highlight them in the model view, but when the assembly has many mates, it can be difficult to identify the highlighted triad for the selected mate. And it doesn't help determine which object the selected mate belongs to Kind of like the existing "Show constraints" option in a sketch, I feel like triads for mates should be hidden in the model view unless a part and/or mate is selected or a new "Show all mates" option is turned on for the assembly which would then (obviously) show all mates. I also expect to be able to right click on a part and have a new action to "Select related mates" which would then highlight those mates used to position the part.

Brock

brucebartlett

Check out this thread

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/1569/#Comment_1569

jonathan_stedman

Bruce - looking at the past thread, have things changed much since then regarding the feature tree?  Its the one thing that is getting difficult to manage as my feature and part count mounts.  I hope OS pay a lot of time to this aspect of the software as it will make or break how well it works when used in design  creation and 'hand over' production situations.  

Some of my SW parts/assemblies  scroll on on on on and on -  I am useless at organizing when doing the design phase - I just go with the flow  -   then when all done I remake a clean model that I share with the clients engineers etc.  They all expect this work flow and are happy to pay for it as they then get a model they can scroll down the history tree and it all makes sense and features have their place and the design intent can be seen and confirmed as correct.

I think there is a place for an optional 'advanced' feature tree that is on a separate browser session so more real estate is available.  Both browser windows are open at once when there is a need to 'error' check and other feature tree interrogation.

Jon

pete_yodis

I wish we didn't need the feature tree as much as we currently do...  We can create a lot of complexity to manage the complexity. 

jonathan_stedman

Pete_Yodis said:

I wish we didn't need the feature tree as much as we currently do...  We can create a lot of complexity to manage the complexity. 

Perhaps OS are going to surprise us. I like the fact that a feature can be done on more than one part.  However its getting complicated organizing it all.  I hope the best brains are on this.

pete_yodis

I'm hinting at a different paradigm.

brucebartlett

Jonathan_Stedman said:

Bruce - looking at the past thread, have things changed much since then regarding the feature tree?  Its the one thing that is getting difficult to manage as my feature and part count mounts.  I hope OS pay a lot of time to this aspect of the software as it will make or break how well it works when used in design  creation and 'hand over' production situations.  

Some of my SW parts/assemblies  scroll on on on on and on -  I am useless at organizing when doing the design phase - I just go with the flow  -   then when all done I remake a clean model that I share with the clients engineers etc.  They all expect this work flow and are happy to pay for it as they then get a model they can scroll down the history tree and it all makes sense and features have their place and the design intent can be seen and confirmed as correct.

I think there is a place for an optional 'advanced' feature tree that is on a separate browser session so more real estate is available.  Both browser windows are open at once when there is a need to 'error' check and other feature tree interrogation.

Jon

@Jonathan_Stedman Has  not changed since that discussion was started. (maybe some small changes/bug fix but no major change that I can remember)

3dcad

Where do you use feature tree?

I like to select everything from tree when doing say extrude, pattern, mirror.. And I like the RMB menu in feature tree when I need to access sketch or feature for edit. This is also why I would like to see feature pattern/mirror so I could just select from the tree and not having to zoom-select faces from model. 

I don't like to click things directly to model since there is often a lot of small things side by side and I'm lazy zooming in. Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned here but I like feature tree and for me tags & filter for the list would be enough.
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/3882/#Comment_3882

My work is often to first draw something (parametric) and then tweak the looks and think of possible manufacturing problems and edit model to it's 1st final state. So it's not convenient for me to stop and think with each step how it should be named to serve me (and other participating designers) over the time.

andrew_troup

A different browser session option (for the fully expanded tree) seems to me to have some merit.

To unlock the fantastic potential of part studios (to permit multiple parts to affect each other in manageable ways) will require a much larger feature tree than industry standard.

It would be great if OnS could radically simplify its feature tree. The desire to make the tree look simple and clean is head-butting against the reality that it is being asked to convey a lot of information.

It might be possible to offload some of that information, either permanently to another part of the interface, or temporarily on an "as-needed" basis.

I also think the solution calls for using sophisticated graphical attributes like shape and colour, along with tags or something similar, to enrich the information content of the tree.

For me these UI questions are more of a challenge for OnS than satisfying the typical user's "checklist" of must-have features. I am confident the necessary features will arrive in due course, because checklists are how most prospective users assess a package.

But for me, the key test of whether those features are usable is whether the user interface will let me manage my human focus, in such a way as to design at the top of my potential. I need a tool which lets me "think out loud", to doodle in 3D solids.

A pencil would let me do that, if I was much more talented. But no matter how clever I was, a pencil which was slippery and prickly and kept breaking would be more a barrier than a tool.

Although conventional MCAD solid modellers keep 'breaking' (and OnS looks like fixing this), many of them (sticking with the pencil analogy) are sublimely smooth and easy to grip, given a level of familiarity and proficiency. That particular bar is already set rather high.

And while checklists brimming with features will certainly draw in new users, a classy UI is needed to keep them.