Configuring Configure Features

tim_wheeler

Kudos to the team for the configuration feature.  Really powerful.

Now, a question:

Is it possible to configure configuration features.

In other words, can you remove configuration options based on other configuration choices/inputs.

In the cylinder part studio used in the webcast, for instance.   In smaller bores, some features might not be possible because of real estate.  Is it possible to limit, or gray out some list selections based upon the #Bore selection.  For instance, in a small bore cylinder, the port sizes available might be the two smallest port sizes, (e.g.,1/8 NPT & 1/4" NPT) while as the bore grows, other port sizes would become available, (e.g.,1/4" & 3/8") while some would be too small to be useable (e.g. 1/8" NPT too small to power 12" bore cylinder).

Is it possible to limit the scope of table selections based upon the value of previous inputs?

Please advise.

mahir

I don't believe you can do what you want the way you want it because it amounts to configuring the same feature with multiple configuration inputs. You can certainly generate the type of geometry you're talking about, but you'll have to give up on doing it from separate list inputs. If you have certain options that are not compatible with each other, then I think you'll have to combine them into a single list input by adding a column for port size and more rows for the same bore size with different port size. But who knows, maybe OS will add support for conext sensitive configuration inputs?

mahir

Your question got me thinking. I believe I have a work around for you. You can have the list input for port size be something like Small, Medium, or Large. This list input drives an integer variable to be either 0, 1, or 2 that will be used as an array index. You can drive your bore size with a list input like normal, but add a column that configures another 'any' variable that is an array of 3 port size options selected by the port size array index.

I know it sounds convoluted, so I made an example using a simple washer model. In the example you can select from 3 different ID sizes. Selecting the ID also changes what the array elements are for #OD. Then, selecting OD size changes #ODSize to either 0,1, or 2. Now the OD size for Sml/Med/Lrg will change depending on what you've selected for ID.

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/57acdfaae4b005c413ed9b6f/w/3fd585a46d3af1b3ba413c53/e/bff7c0eb0103e281d089cf51

tim_wheeler

Thanks for the input.  The ports were just an example.. albeit a good one for a changing selection group.   I'm more concerned about features that have exceptions that naturally occur in a design that scales in size.  Some features just aren't possible or practical at smaller sizes..  or the range of selection changes as the scale of the product grows or shrinks.. or features have to be rotated to make room for them for options.

I think the answer is dependent configuration inputs, or sub-inputs. that can be validated by the main table.

I keep thinking there might be a work around with variables or if-then statements, such as the one in the introduction video.

A secondary table that allows you to suppress/unsuppress of configuration options would do the trick in my mind, but I have no idea whether that can be done given the current architecture.

mahir

@tim_wheeler, did you see my example above? It's not as much freedome as you'd like, but it may get you closer to what you want.

tim_wheeler

Yes.  I got it right after I refreshed.   It is helpful.

Ultimately it will take some type of work-around to make this work.  The lack of NPT hole options mean the whole thing is in beta in the mean-time.. 

I appreciate your input.