move part from a multipart studio to it's own part studio
nelson_pereira280
Member Posts: 37 ✭
Hi all,
As i was viewing a OnShape webinar that discussed the derived feature, it also shortly discussed the Top Down and Bottom up approach in building in CAD. I like the bottom up approach so here is my question:
I have a part studio that has multiple parts in it. How do I MOVE each part to it's own part studio? Is that possible after the fact? Then i could have the following setup in my tabs:
tab 1 would had all parts derived into a single Part Studio (block and bracket)
tab 2 would be the bracket
tab 3 would be the block
is this possible?
As i was viewing a OnShape webinar that discussed the derived feature, it also shortly discussed the Top Down and Bottom up approach in building in CAD. I like the bottom up approach so here is my question:
I have a part studio that has multiple parts in it. How do I MOVE each part to it's own part studio? Is that possible after the fact? Then i could have the following setup in my tabs:
tab 1 would had all parts derived into a single Part Studio (block and bracket)
tab 2 would be the bracket
tab 3 would be the block
is this possible?
0
Best Answer
-
If you want to follow bottom up approach then the rule "one part per part studio" applies. Then you don't need to split it into different part studios because they already are separated. So you can assembly all parts from the part studios in an assembly like lego.
If you use Multipart-Studios with multiple parts you no longer follow the bottom-up approach. Then it makes no sense to split the parts into different part studios because you can insert part by part in an assembly.0
Answers
-
If all the features that create each part are fully independent, you can duplicate a tab, and then in tab A you delete all of part B's features, and in tab B you delete all of part A's features.
I've does this. It works pretty well.Simon Gatrall | Product Development, Engineering, Design, Onshape | Ex- IDEO, PCH, Unagi, Carbon | LinkedIn
1 -
so can you clarify on what you mean by independent feature.
0 -
Independent, in this case, equals features which are only dependent on the default datums and the origin.If you use one fillet feature to add fillets to both parts at once, that's going to be a little more complex to split up. If part 'A' has a sketch on a face of part 'B' that's going to be even harder. You can show dependencies with a right click menu.
Simon Gatrall | Product Development, Engineering, Design, Onshape | Ex- IDEO, PCH, Unagi, Carbon | LinkedIn
0 -
Why would you want to break out parts currently drawn together into separate studios, and then combine them again using derive? That's just a big circle.
Are you trying to make an assembly?0 -
If you want to follow bottom up approach then the rule "one part per part studio" applies. Then you don't need to split it into different part studios because they already are separated. So you can assembly all parts from the part studios in an assembly like lego.
If you use Multipart-Studios with multiple parts you no longer follow the bottom-up approach. Then it makes no sense to split the parts into different part studios because you can insert part by part in an assembly.0 -
makes the part studio less clutterednick_papageorge073 said:Why would you want to break out parts currently drawn together into separate studios, and then combine them again using derive? That's just a big circle.
Are you trying to make an assembly?0 -
i understand.Urs_Egger_REACT said:If you want to follow bottom up approach then the rule "one part per part studio" applies. Then you don't need to split it into different part studios because they already are separated. So you can assembly all parts from the part studios in an assembly like lego.
If you use Multipart-Studios with multiple parts you no longer follow the bottom-up approach. Then it makes no sense to split the parts into different part studios because you can insert part by part in an assembly.0
