Home› Product Feedback

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.

Options

Beyond system limits

don_howedon_howe Member Posts: 115 ✭✭✭
in Product Feedback
I created a simple test using full size dimensions that layoff the gun deck of a 18th century 74 gunship. The length between perpendiculars is 176 ft. Draw a straight line and erect perpendiculars at each end of the line and make their height 24' 6". Call the line on the right the foremost perpendicular and call the line on the left the aftermost perpendicular. From the foremost perpendicular set back 66 ft and erect another perpendicular, call it dead-flat and make it's height 22' 6". Draw a curve to pass thru all three spots at the heights of the perpendiculars. Simple enough. However OS chokes on this. I suspect OS has same operating environment that early versions SW did, a cube of 500 meters. The radius generated by my simple test would be 21,792 inches. This tells me that OS cannot be used to build full size structures.

I would request that this limitation be removed asap

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/a1fc976bf226407397f33f31/w/90826e06b9ad4756b85c88f8/e/96c44f0cef8346249af131c6

Tagged:

Comments

  • Options
    shashank_aaryashashank_aarya Member Posts: 265 ✭✭✭
    I just tried to access your document but sketch was empty and in failed condition. However based on the profile what you mentioned for 18th century 74 gunship I just followed the steps and built a sketch as shown below. But there was no problem.

    I am not sure if I missed anything while creating it. If possible can you suggest if anything I need to correct in this sketch to reproduce the situation you faced?

    If I am not missing anything then you can check the graphics performance recommendations here
    https://cad.onshape.com/help/#webgl.htm?TocPath=Welcome%20to%20Onshape|_____2

    Also can you once again elaborate the details of 500 meters cube. I will try that scenario also.

    Thanks
  • Options
    don_howedon_howe Member Posts: 115 ✭✭✭
    edited September 2015
    OK first, all the heights are measured from the same base line. Second, did you make the heights and lengths in feet and inches? Meaning, 176 ft = 2112 inches, 24 ft 6" = 294 inches, etc.?  

    The system environment or operating range of OS is a cube of 500 virtual meters.
  • Options
    navnav Member Posts: 258 ✭✭✭✭
    Hi @don_howe I have never thought of the limits as I we don`t usually model anything that big, however I just played around to see what the limits were; as far as sketching only, drawing a line in each direction centered at the centerpoint you can draw a line of a length of 999 Meters, if you enter 1000 Meters you get a system error.



    The maximum build volume is ->


    Nicolas Ariza V.
    Indaer -- Aircraft Lifecycle Solutions
  • Options
    shashank_aaryashashank_aarya Member Posts: 265 ✭✭✭
    @don_howe I tried putting the value in inches as suggested by you. Below is a result.



    Regarding limit I definitely agree with you. The limit of Onshape is different from unit to unit.
  • Options
    don_howedon_howe Member Posts: 115 ✭✭✭
    shashank_aarya   The 270 dimension (the middle perpendicular) comes from the same base line as the 294. Doing so will invert your curve.  Remember this is the line that will represent the deck of the ship. I will try this step again during my lunch hour and see what happens. 
  • Options
    don_howedon_howe Member Posts: 115 ✭✭✭
    Well, I just tried again here at work. I set up my perpendiculars, used a 3 point arc to draw my radius and it gives me the following error.


  • Options
    navnav Member Posts: 258 ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2015
    Hi @don_howe anything drew outside OS systems limits will result on an error no matter how small the object you are drawing is. Verify your sketch is contained in the 999m x 999m (or equivalent units) square area. (Centered to the origin)




    OSF.gif 634.6K
    Nicolas Ariza V.
    Indaer -- Aircraft Lifecycle Solutions
  • Options
    lougallolougallo Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 2,001
    It seems like you may not be in the correct units. You can type in the unit or set it in the hamburger menu in the upper left.. 176ft is well within the limit of the system. 
    Lou Gallo / PD/UX - Support - Community / Onshape, Inc.
  • Options
    _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    @lougallo it appears the issue is with the size of the radius and not the size of the ship
  • Options
    dennis_20dennis_20 Member Posts: 87 EDU
    Would the center of the radius be outside the working envelope?  Could that be why it is failing?
  • Options
    shashank_aaryashashank_aarya Member Posts: 265 ✭✭✭
    @don_howe You are correct. I also tried exactly same thing what you shown and it given same results to me. After this error I increased 270 inch value incrementally and found that error occurs up to 320.5 inch. Error will not come when the value is greater than 320.5 inch. So, in such case you can raise support ticket for the same.
  • Options
    andrew_troupandrew_troup Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Don's example seems to suggest that it is not just entities, but also the centre of all arcs which needs to be within the cube. Which seems to me to make sense.
  • Options
    andrew_troupandrew_troup Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2015
    Forum software screwing up again (not refreshing, losing posts)

    I suggest using a spline instead of a three point arc.
     I  doubt a naval architect would use a trammel to construct a sheer line, even if his studio was big enough.
    The character of the curve, in the case of a circular arc, is unsuited to the circumstance.
    The very word "spline" originally came from the flexible battens used as drawing tools for lofting ship hull shapes, I seem to recall.
  • Options
    _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    too bad on the center of arc in the cube, I could see that as being an issue if I needed a large arc. I suppose a spline would suffice when/if it ever comes to that.
  • Options
    _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2015
    @andrew_troup I'm developing an admiration and respect of how full of amazing relevant trivia you are.
  • Options
    andrew_troupandrew_troup Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2015
    @da_vicki
    y2k  :)
    the splines (wooden battens) used for lofting sheerlines were generally thicker aft, because the nature of a sheerline is typically straighter aft of the inflection point, which itself is generally aft of midships. (by way of explaining what I said earlier about a circular arc having the wrong 'character', which extends to any conic I'm aware of)

    Whereas I seem to recall the splines used for "diagonals" were thick at both ends ....

    I wonder if specialised CAD apps for marine architecture provide a simple way of capturing the character of a spline.
    Unrelated (or barely related) point: I imagine Beziers might be more suitable than B splines...
  • Options
    _Ðave__Ðave_ Member, Developers Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭
    @andrew_troup I understand where your coming from about a circular arc from another thread But am inclined to disagree as to a spline being a preferred arc. The only reason being that in my world (CNC Machining) the dreaded spline will create multitudes of programming lines of code and whenever reasonably possible (even required on older machines) gets converted to a circular arc which creates only one line of code with a much smoother finish.
  • Options
    navnav Member Posts: 258 ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2015
    andrew_troup said:
    Don's example seems to suggest that it is not just entities, but also the centre of all arcs which needs to be within the cube. Which seems to me to make sense.
    da_vicki said:
    too bad on the center of arc in the cube, I could see that as being an issue if I needed a large arc. I suppose a spline would suffice when/if it ever comes to that.
    You guys nailed it, indeed the center of the arc its outside OS drawing limits. That`s why you get an error.

    EDIT: Is not the center of the arc, just did a test to put the center in the drawings limits and still did not work what I believe its happening even though its an ARC the projected geometry is a circle if I want to close the ARC. And parts of the circle are outside the drawing limits.
    Nicolas Ariza V.
    Indaer -- Aircraft Lifecycle Solutions
  • Options
    andrew_troupandrew_troup Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    da_vicki said:
    @andrew_troup I understand where your coming from about a circular arc from another thread But am inclined to disagree as to a spline being a preferred arc. The only reason being that in my world (CNC Machining) the dreaded spline will create multitudes of programming lines of code and whenever reasonably possible (even required on older machines) gets converted to a circular arc which creates only one line of code with a much smoother finish.
    I was talking in a narrowly specific context, @da_vicki, pointing out that the constant curvature of a circular arc is not very useful in describing the curvature of ships and boats, whereas you seem to have read my recommendation as being general in some way.

    But maybe I misunderstand, because I can't work out what you mean when you say "...from another thread" 
     
    Setting that aside: your point is well taken... and I guess those whose CNC capabilities extend to full size shipbuilding would have to take particular note ;) .
  • Options
    don_howedon_howe Member Posts: 115 ✭✭✭
    I'm a little disappointed that I can't do this full size. I know I can reduce the scale to 1:48 which was typical of 18th century draughts but I have learned that certain errors can creep in at 1:48 even with CAD because of the rounding of dimensions. The early days of SW had the same problem and I don't know when they corrected it but SW2015 didn't have any problems putting in an arc with the requirements I specified. Splines are not the answer as has been pointed out for various reasons. There is a time and place for splines but I don't believe this is one of them. I think based on the feed back I will submit a ticket that is, if someone else hasn't already done so.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In

Categories

Vanilla Forums