Is "Drawing" the weak point of OnShape ?

francois_boulet

We recently had an administrative decision to change our software from Solid Edge to OnShape.

From the beginning, I loved the “Part studio” and “Assembly” part of it.  For multiple reasons I prefer it to our former software. Our students learn it faster.

The problem is when we get to produce drawings.  

I’ve been teaching  for decades, trying to produce good draftsman  for our industry (Furniture and architectural woodworking). I’m teaching them good practice on how to communicate efficiently in full respect of ANSI  and our industry standards.

With OnShape Drawing,  I just cannot do it. I may have to train them on another software, which is not the ideal solution. As I see it, the weak point of OnShape is drawing. The simplicity of Part studio and Assembly do not look like less than the big software (SW, SE...), it looks like “Forward”. The simplicity of Drawing looks like BASIC & nonprofessional.

I looked over the required improvements (IMPROVEMENT REQUESTS) and my dissatisfaction toward Drawing seems to be marginal. I would propose that some people that use drawings intensively are just not members of the club. Maybe, they did not jump into the train because of that. As an introduction, I told you that our switch to OnShape was an administrative decision. This means that I would not have made that choice because of the limited possibility of Drawing.

I really hope that very soon you will give us the opportunity to produce professional drawings that we can be proud of.

It is in our common interest.

Here are the improvements that we really need, to be able to meet the minimum standards of our industry, as well as ANSI’s.

1-        Having the possibility to hatch different materials with different hatching symbols.

2-      Improving the hatching automatic spacing. Sometimes you get just one line of hatching for a surface.  If you cannot get the software to do it right, please give us the possibility to adjust it ourselves.

3-      Break view on sections. Details on a small scale views is not a good solution for our type of assemblies.  (see provided example)

4-      Local sections on an external view. We have to do it several times in a project, and we would not like to see all the section symbols everywhere.  (see provided example)

5-      The possibility to break a part in a drawing  (not for real) to show what is under it. (see provided example). This could possibly be done with the “local section” tool I mention on point   4-

I hope that I’m not asking for too big issues .

brian_brady

I totally agree. I moved from the machine design industry to academia to teach future machine design type engineers. Creating robust drawings that match the standards with flexibility for various industries is the weakest part of OnShape. If it weren't for that, I would recommend it to people I know in that industry because it otherwise does everything they need (spare a few relatively minor items here or there). I hope OnShape continues to iterate drawings, but on a faster pace.

Tony_C_

I'm going to go with yes.......As I sit here watching the "spinning wheel of wait" on a drawing as it has been loading for the last 5 minutes. 

OS does not like my sectioning.

dick_van_der_vaart

@francois_boulet I know I'm starting a discussion now but how about a different appraoch.

1 You create a folder in your document, put in a final assembly and all the basic drawing's with the needet measure's and also drawing's of flat pattern's etc.
2 The person in the workshop create's a public license off Onshape.
3 You share the document with this person, with a personal note regarding the part he must produce.
4 Now he can export all needet file's DXF, STL, STEP etc. and view the object at every angle, see trough, section view off all sort's.

That a step toward's a paperless office, and save's a lot of time.
After a short learning period nobody want's paper drawing's anymore.

3dcad

@dick_van_der_vaart

YES!

And if you wan't to share only partial data, link it to another doc and share link to that document = permanent link, access without login to exactly the data you wan't to share.

Then with some further experience on paperless design-to-manufacturing, write an ultimate improvement request for superior MBD feature! You will get my vote for sure

dick_van_der_vaart

@3dcad
I forgot to mention, after production of the part's, delete all local file's.
In case off a repeat order just repeat all the share steps again, so you never have outdated file's everywhere.
That's the way to make optimal use off Onshape.

Daniel_Orchard

The paperless workflow is a great idea to work towards for the future and I think widespread adoption will happen eventually.
However on the drawing front, when all of your major clients demand paper and native drawing output for handover (.dwg / .dgn) with very strict output standards, then the drawings become an absolute must. And as they stand at the moment, the drawing module still needs a bit of work to come up to any sort of standard. As per previous comments, the one and only reason I have not upgraded to a pro license is the fact that the drawing module is still missing some major pieces to produce production drawings to standard. I still have to export my models to other software to produce the production drawings, which is not ideal. With the pace of development I think / hope it will not be far away.
The modelling side is fantastic and the team are doing a great job - just need drawings.

francois_boulet

I would like to point out that paperless workflow can also mean working with drawings. It's not just a matter of printing or not. Nowadays, we don't print that much.
As I see it, Drawing is a way of synthesizing and of organizing the information. It is all about communication.
Some activities may need more elaborate communication than others.
The paperless workflow has been propose for at least a decade and we still don't see it so much.
I hope that in the CAD world we will always have space for both philosophy.