Improvements to Onshape - March 15th, 2024

tabetha_bulnes · March 19

For the sketch color property, are you able to do this in FeatureScript as well? If so, what would be an example query that would allow the sketch to update colors?

connor_mcbride · March 19

can we PLEASE have a built in dark mode? Eye strain is a real thing and a nearly solid white background can cause some serious damage to the eyes over time.

eric_pesty · March 19

Also just noticed that curves still can't have color assigned (the old trick of putting them in a closed composite hasn't been "restored" either...), surely that shouldn't be too hard to add now? Please?

tabetha_bulnes · March 20

eric_pesty said:

Also just noticed that curves still can't have color assigned (the old trick of putting them in a closed composite hasn't been "restored" either...), surely that shouldn't be too hard to add now? Please?

^ this and opPoint coloring.

paolo_cianci · March 20

sketch appearances creates problems in the exported dxf of a flat sheet metal, Autocad is unable to open it, no problem if I leave the default color in the sketch

dave_lapthorne · March 20

paolo_cianci said:

sketch appearances creates problems in the exported dxf of a flat sheet metal, Autocad is unable to open it, no problem if I leave the default color in the sketch

Thanks for letting us know Paolo, please log a support ticket on this so our team can fully investigate.

lauren_little · March 20

eric_pesty said:

Also just noticed that curves still can't have color assigned (the old trick of putting them in a closed composite hasn't been "restored" either...), surely that shouldn't be too hard to add now? Please?

We hear you- we are not done with appearance updates

MichaelPascoe · March 20

@connor_mcbride, give Dark Reader a try. Works great!

john_mcclary · March 20

Dark reader works most of the time, but it washes out the icons and does not work on drawings.

which I find harder on the eyes since you go from calm and dark to bright white when opening a drawing

wayne_sauder · March 20

I much prefer this one Chrome Web Store for dark mode.
See Discussion

john_mcclary · March 20

wayne_sauder said:

I much prefer this one Chrome Web Store for dark mode.
See Discussion

Oh, that's much nicer!

the icons are still a bit fuzzy, but I like the color mode and dark drawing!

It made be give them my email for a free trial... but I didn't see anything about cost. (I went through install pretty quick)
Is it free forever? or what?

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/l7/bg8fzc7lmbez.png

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/q6/rv9eac2vdqrr.png

wayne_sauder · March 20

@john_mcclary
I don't know what the deal is, I saw that it was $3.99 for a lifetime. But the other day my free trial expired and I paid $2.99. I understood this to be a one-time fee.

Buy the way I told Onshape they should buy this from the developer and bake it in. With a few refinements.

john_mcclary · March 20

Hell, that ain't bad

STEG · March 22

kenn_sebesta167 said:

Taking what @STEG says, it is nice to have all the possible threads present, but, well, is it, though? 99.9% of threads will be the most common (metric/SAE coarse), and the rest are outliers. Without strong UI guidance, it becomes much harder than it needs to be to use the hole tool intelligently if you are not intimately familiar with the, pardon the pun, fine details.

Don't overestimate the propensity of new engineers to do something we think is silly, like design around #5 screws (find that in McMaster!), but arise simply because they've made an "optimal" design and simply haven't got hands-on experience yet. While I don't think OnShape should spend too much time worrying about that edge case, it should definitely consider the standard case of people knowing they want an M6, but not having memorized that a "standard" M6 is a 1mm pitch.

Personally, from this perspective I will find this current version of the hole tool menu harder to use, and harder to teach. I think with @STEG's suggestion that might fix the problem. (For me at least, since I've got enough experience to know what UNC and UNF are, and generally when to use them. A lot of people won't, though...)

What do OnShape devs think about doing tech-previews of this kind of UI rework, before committing it? I think it would help work out a lot of kinks for things which have a strong, but narrow, need. It certainly makes sense that OnShape needs to add features required to land big paying clients, but I've noticed certain new features come at the cost of general usability. A couple tweaks to those features and it might be a "have your cake and eat it, too" situation.

Just to let you know that Onshape dev team conducts with some users what they call "Usability test" and I've already been a tester. Besides, I participated in the new Hole feature interface usability test.

Onshape dev team isn't working in their closed door office, hoping the new features they develop will be appreciated by the users, they work with the users and listen to them.

Unfortunately, sometimes the result isn't perfect. But most of the time, it is great!

The improvement I'm requesting here is something I already requested months ago. But keep in mind that they have to prioritize (with many factors into consideration) and paying or not, we can't always get what we are considering a top priority (like for this request for example).

Is Onshape perfect? No. Do I want to use another CAD software? HELL NO!

kenn_sebesta167 · March 23

STEG said:

Just to let you know that Onshape dev team conducts with some users what they call "Usability test" and I've already been a tester. Besides, I participated in the new Hole feature interface usability test.

A tech preview is different from a closed beta test. It lets a broad swath of users know what is coming before it goes live. We could imagine watching the informational video a few days *before* the software change is released. (Qt does this quite well, although it's obviously a different thing to release a programming SDK vs a software application.)

One of my colleagues, a better drafter than I and the engineer who got me hooked on OnShape, looked at this hole feature and said "OnShape needs more mechanical engineers and fewer software engineers." This isn't a sentiment I agree with, but the fact that she would have that opinion at all is worth keeping in mind.

JamesonBinanitan · March 23

Hi Onshape Team,

Congratulations! Another set of awesome updates. I particularly like the SKETCH DIMENSION EXPRESSION DISPLAY.

While testing it out, I was curious about using it in an inactive sketch.
Sample Photo:

I wonder if you would also consider activating this feature in inactive sketches, alongside other variable-driven tools like Extrude, Revolve, and so on.

Thanks!

adrian_vlzkz · March 27

lauren_little said:

eric_pesty said:

Also just noticed that curves still can't have color assigned (the old trick of putting them in a closed composite hasn't been "restored" either...), surely that shouldn't be too hard to add now? Please?

We hear you- we are not done with appearance updates

Please! we need Display States that control Appearances/Visibility/Transparency

adrian_vlzkz · March 27

JamesonBinanitan said:

Hi Onshape Team,
Congratulations! Another set of awesome updates. I particularly like the SKETCH DIMENSION EXPRESSION DISPLAY.
While testing it out, I was curious about using it in an inactive sketch.
Sample Photo:

I wonder if you would also consider activating this feature in inactive sketches, alongside other variable-driven tools like Extrude, Revolve, and so on.
Thanks!

The "Show Expression" checkbox does not stick after closing the Sketch, this must bu a bug otherwise is useless. Also, the Expressions need to be visible without needing to go into Edit Sketch mode.

john_pope364 · March 28

I have a few issue with the improved hole feature, mostly its good,
we are UK based so this is mostly relevant to metric threads
1) the selection would be super helpful to default to course pitch when a size is selected as these are the standard for metric threads and save us accidently putting fine pitches in there.

2) the fastener fit needs to be disabled as there isn't one for a tapped hole and we keep forgetting this and not understanding why the feature isn't working.

3) the thread class needs to not be here but if it is, it needs to not change the nominal size of the hole put into the model, the minor size drilled is dependant on the tooling used to machine the tapped hole so should just be a standard tap drill size, why has this been done at all? we are having to change all of this as we go straight to CAM from the model and its causing us real pain, normally we only expect to see the tolerance class of anything within the drawing options, not at model level.

NeverEnoughInk · March 28

Releases like this one with lots of QoL improvements really show just how hard y'all are listening to feedback, and that's awesome. The feature-specific videos in the release notes are EXTREMELY useful. Thanks for all your hard work!

michael_zeagler · March 30

I'm curious if we lost the ability to configure a hole feature's "style" (counterbore, countersink) in this update or one of the previous ones? Is there any info on whether that will be coming back any time soon? I tried configuring a new hole feature today but it said "This parameter does not support being configured." The hole features I already had in my part studios don't seem to have updated, and so they still support it.

S1mon · April 5

It’s about that time again…

john_mcclary · April 5

michael_zeagler said:

I'm curious if we lost the ability to configure a hole feature's "style" (counterbore, countersink) in this update or one of the previous ones? Is there any info on whether that will be coming back any time soon? I tried configuring a new hole feature today but it said "This parameter does not

support being configured." The hole features I already had in my part studios don't seem to have updated, and so they still support it.

Not sure why they don't want it configured...

to get it back copy this featurescript std | hole.fs (onshape.com)

then delete "unconfigurable" from lines 351 and 354

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022071/uploads/editor/jl/o7mfibtxhi5n.png

dingdang_da · April 6

Why the hole still old version in my document

john_mcclary · April 6

If a feature is added to your partstudio tree, it will remain that version until you replace it with the new version.

If it's a custom feature then it will have a blue update icon to notify you

dingdang_da · April 8

john_mcclary said:

If a feature is added to your partstudio tree, it will remain that version until you replace it with the new version.

If it's a custom feature then it will have a blue update icon to notify you

I don't know how to replace my Hole feature with the latest version, it doesn't have the blue icon.

john_mcclary · April 8

You have to delete the original and remake it with the new one

dingdang_da · April 9

In one of my documents, when I create a new hole feature, it remains the old version of the hole. However, in another document, when I create a new hole feature, it is the new version of the hole.

john_mcclary · April 9

Your document may not be updated, can you share a link?
Otherwise contact support

Improvements to Onshape - March 15th, 2024

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories