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.

Older Improvement Requests...

Don_Van_ZileDon_Van_Zile Member Posts: 195 PRO
edited August 2018 in General

Thought I would go through some of the much older IR's to vote on and thought I would share some thoughts.


https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/1467/add-option-to-view-mates-for-a-specified-component

This says it's "completed", but I beg to differ based on the request. I want to be able to select a Part(s) and specifically show their Mates via the Parts List or Graphics area RMB.
So I voted for @Tony_C_ ; idea below...

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/6444/right-mouse-button-show-mate-connectors



This is becoming an annoyance/hindrance not being able to select a face that's been sectioned to drag and move Parts based on their mates.

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/6717/moving-parts-in-section-view-by-dragging-on-their-section-surface




We still need commonly used Port Holes such as NPT standard holes added without the need for custom FS that still isn't available, but this idea below is marked completed with 27 votes.

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/6033/expand-hole-feature-capabilities




This request for Assembly Level Pattern (marked completed with 27 votes) is marked complete with the addition of the Replicate command, but I think most users would rather have the Derived Pattern functionality/idea from @john_mcclary below (See discussion in link for more details)

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/1445/assembly-level-pattern


https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/9911/derived-component-pattern-assembly#latest


https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/6049/dowel-pin-symbol



This is still a BIG limitation for adding Hole Callout dimension's within a drawing.

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/6313/editing-hole-callouts-of-decimal-places-and-tolerance-digits-on-drawings



@owen_sparksbrings up a small but noticeable UI behavior I've noticed too; it's a UI annoyance to be sure that could be improved.

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/4273/transform-by-mate-connector-2nd-mate-field-auto-activation 


I've noticed the lack of "Auto-Advance" with adding a Mate Connector Between Entities too. There may be others, but these workflows can be improved.






Comments

  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 1,753 PRO
    https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/4273/transform-by-mate-connector-2nd-mate-field-auto-activation
    You forgot to link @owen_sparks IR.. Here it is (plus 1 vote btw)

    I have also found this annoying, but I can understand on some places because you can select multiple entities in some fields, but this isn't true across the board.
  • Don_Van_ZileDon_Van_Zile Member Posts: 195 PRO

    Thanks @john_mcclary - I added the link as well to the OP; good catch.
  • owen_sparksowen_sparks Member, Developers Posts: 2,225 PRO
    edited August 2018
    Hi folks, thanks for another interesting thread.

    (1) With regards to the field auto activation as you say it's a tiny thing.  But I noticed that the create plane feature automatically select mid plane for you if you've pre-selected two planes before calling the create function.  This simple filter removed the "death by scrolling" that some software suffers from and just makes workflows much smoother and more enjoyable. :) I think there are loads of opportunities like this for Onshape.  Feels a bit like the person that wrote that filter moved on, or that the effort is being aimed at the big ticket items most of the time. (Understandable of course.)

    When I started in OS I spent most of the mental energy in working out "how to CAD".  Now I have the basics covered the speed of the UI comes more into play.  I don't know how you guys work but I get frustrated when I can think the design faster than I can get it into the model...

    (2) The general closing of IRs has irked me in the past.  Unless there is a genuine and overwhelming reason to decline an IR why not leave it open to die of no votes?  Closing them can demotivate the poster to offer up their next idea, which might be a game changer.

    @[email protected]_Van_Zile I don't really get why your https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/9951/part-studio-fillets-and-chamfers-combined-feature-for-interchangeability-between-the-two was closed.  Having it declined prompted me to suggest the named selection of entities IR so if we must have 2 features to be able to switch between a fillet and a chamfer at least we don't have to select all the damn edges all over again :/

    (3)  I'll admit this got to me a bit:-


    In no way is this already offered and the request for clarification went unanswered, which to be fair to OnS is a very rare exception to the rule. 

    OS have an awesome bunch of people working in a very smart way, but as you say perhaps a sweep of all previous IR's might be in order.

    Cheers 'n' all,

    Owen S.
    Production Engineer
    HWM-Water Ltd
Sign In or Register to comment.