Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- 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.
I have a workflow question
jack_erhart
Member Posts: 123 ✭✭
I have parts I have modeled that are in their own document.
So when I am wanting to use those already exsisting models, I use the derived feature to bring them into the document I am working on.
I want to bring them into a Part Studio and not an Assembly so that I can use them to develope the part I am working on.
I need editing capability within the new document, but it seems that Onshape doesn't like to many derived parts exsisting in a new document.
I am developing seperate parts and areas of old locomotives. I have done a couple, so I don't want to have to remodel the same type of parts over and over again.
Here is an example of the brake componates I am working on:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/b8ceac4d24fe0b9657a277dc/w/736d520e488defd57a27758e/e/3d41a59c3eed40f75bd0cf17?renderMode=0&uiState=66eda5de88098b7c091fcd95
Is there a different workflow I should be using? Thanks for your help.
Comments
Hi Jack.
As to work flow. I'm wondering why you're using derived components in the part studio.
My preferred work flow is to insert parts into an assembly. Positioning the parts in an assembly is much simpler and more efficient to place parts. From there you can edit in context to make new parts. No need to set up multiple transforms for position.
I gave this example for someone else his morning and it would apply to your project as well.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/703909ffe67529444f0f5f95/w/9d497920e87b2d685d920461/e/0b67a7a970de5bba0afb9bae
If you are just using them as a reference for the part your working on, then you can bring them into an assembly then reference them one time in a context. This would be a low cost way of doing it and will still allow you to edit your part within that assembly context in the part studio.
Learn more about the Gospel of Christ ( Here )
CADSharp - We make custom features and integrated Onshape apps! Learn How to FeatureScript Here 🔴
Glen,
Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well, but I want to work through your suggestion if you will be patient with this old man.
I'm developing parts that need to fit or won't interfere with other parts. So once I start working in a Part Studio to develope the new part, that same part may have componates as part of it's makeup that I need to bring in. That's the development part of my work. Once a part is developed to a degree, I want to test it in another document to make sure of fit and function.
Example: Here is a devlopment doc for the brake system on my locomotive:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/b8ceac4d24fe0b9657a277dc/w/736d520e488defd57a27758e/e/3d41a59c3eed40f75bd0cf17?renderMode=0&uiState=66edc159ceaaca7e3d636d39
Once I develope a part, like the Brake Cylinder, I want to test it's placement in this document that has the same frame config. but has all the suspension parts placed in it.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/e8dca09624a5527ece9cb6cb/w/9bda694accad4ea0981f0bc1/e/b2a08f9994093aa375341e5f?renderMode=0&uiState=66edc2107d475712ef2137d2
So I'm not understanding how that could work for me to use Assembly and edit in context. Could you explain how that could work for my application? Thanks for the help.
@jack_erhart, You made laugh at myself, when I was thinking about how long it took me to wrap my head around this whole concept. Pardon me if this is old information, but I will try to briefly explain.
A) one document can contain any number of parts, assemblies or folders (usually only one document per project - consider it the top level, and give it the project name)
B) each part studio may contain one single part. or multiple parts (draw only one version of each unique part needed - you will duplicate parts later in assemblies) Multipart studios are used if parts share geometry (it just speeds things up) Also multi-part parts, can appear in the part studio, at random locations without ill effects (you will fully define positions in the assembly).
C) in assemblies, insert as many parts as it takes to build your model (and join them together with mates - this is where you build your finished model - not in the part environment).
D) If all part studios are contained in the document, all changes to parts will update automatically in the assemblies (if parts are located outside of document, and part changes are made, then manual updates are required).
This explanation is highly simplified (and roughly in order of creation), and a lot was not covered, I recommend that you investigate the "learning center" for more detailed information. - Nice project by the way -
I think the problem is that you are not leveraging assemblies!
Rather than bring everything into your part studio as derives to test your fit, just put your part in the assembly an test the fit there!
Also use patterns and replicate in your assembly whenever you have multiple of the same parts.
Thanks Rick,
So could I create one main document and say name it "101 Locomotive" and move the indivitual documents I have already created into this one main document? Maybe move them in by inserting them into indivitual assemblies? Am I understanding that correctly?
Hi Jack
My friend and I did a similar project some years ago.
Here is the link to a public document you may want to study.
Beware, it’s a bit complex 😀 and the names are in dutch…
if you have any questions i’ll be happy to answer them.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/8361223482b1fd5454d13f2d/w/37a3b322f8e1cf40111e3fe9/e/c7d6ab0c86b4495271706e34
Jack that does sound right, if I understand correctly.
Great example Jan. Thank you so much for posting that. I will give it a good study.
Just be careful about what you call a "document". It helps to know the full definition of this term (don't confuse document, with parts or assemblies).
So if I'm understanding you Rick. A document is what holds all the elements that make up the project. Folders can be create within a document to hold many Parts or Assemblies. Like what Jan showed in his project. Is that correct?
This really is a pretty simple concept, but one that is hard to explain in twenty words or less. Once the light-bulb goes off - you will say "so that's all there is to it"?
A) Document holds all "part studios" and "assemblies"
B) "Part studios" contain the individual pieces that make up the model
C) "Assemblies" are where "parts" and "sub-assemblies" are joined together to make the finished model
This is the basic hierarchy, There can be exceptions to everything.
I think you have it now. Hope I didn't confuse you to much and good luck
I agree with Rick.
I would add D) Folders to the list. However Folders are just an organisational means. They do not add to functionality of 3D design. They are simply containers.
Thank you both. You were very helpful. Here is what I have so far. https://cad.onshape.com/documents/5b07509c1ad3f0684e3e9c0a/w/ea59347f2135098a63404bc4/e/39a2b554372554a7fa18b0a7?renderMode=0&uiState=66ede0ff6dc655688285b11c
@jack_erhart
Hey Jack, looks like lots of help coming through.😀 It took me a while to get full understanding of 'in context' but it sure is worth the study time. So much cleaner and faster with lots of folks ready to help. Did you get a chance to look through the sample I posted for Curtis? It is much simpler than what your doing but easier to catch the concept.
A) Document holds…. + drawings + ref docs(like pdf and pictures) + etc.
I have not looked carefully through your model, but when I roll back to the first feature (the derive), it looks almost the same as 253 features later. The main differences I see is the new lamp on top, the angled side text, and a different lamp in the middle. You are probably doing a bunch more work than necessary. 253 features can typically design this sub-asm from scratch, without the derive, and as true separate pieces made for a real train.
It's an interesting scenerio, because you are printing all of these in mostly one piece, including the heads of the rivets, etc, to look real. If this was a real, full size, physical train, all of these parts would of course be separate (but still designed together where it makes sense), placed in an assembly, and then all the fasteners would be off-the-shelf and added to the assembly. With printing it all as one piece, then painting to look real, etc, I honestly don't know how I'd set out to model this. Plus I know you will be making many trains.
Nick,
Just for your interest, here are the finished models I have done so far for the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum.
#1 Avila:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zNPHkXfF7VkfJmqE9
#2 John Harford:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/CQke8VUim6fZnuQ3A
And the one I am presently working on. #101:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/k9L3t3XubCyxQHNU9
All 100% 3D printed. I'm still working on getting my workflow in a better place. I'm working now on understanding editing in context, and bringing exsisting parts into a developing Part Studio. Should I be bringing parts into an assembly and then editing them in context? Still trying to understand how that all fits together. I'm having to unlearn a lot.
I had another question about how I am orgainizing my projects. Those of you who have a much better understanding can answer as to wither I have a good understanding or not.
I have several "Documents" that have made up the indivitual Part Studios and parts of a finished locomotive. And I want to orgainize that entire project like I have orgainized the "101 Locomotive Project." Seen here: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/5b07509c1ad3f0684e3e9c0a/w/ea59347f2135098a63404bc4/e/0c320a329cba43d9314c1f6c?renderMode=0&uiState=66eef4206dc6556882894e52
So I'm going to explain the steps as to how I understand it, and hopefully you folks can correct me where I am missing anything.
So that is where I am at for now. Sure appreciate any instruction that will help make these projects run smoother.
Thanks agaon.
Don't actually have to move them since they're all ready completed.
In stead of using derive to see them in the top level document they can be inserted into the top level assembly.
Usually done in one document with all part studios, assemblies and drawings in one document. If the main document becomes too clustered for your liking then coordinated part studios, assemblies and drawings can be moved out to their own document. Once moved out they will add another management layer. If there are no versions created then it won't matter. Once versions are made in external docs then there is a manual update of versions in the main document.
Since they are already done as individual docs you probably want to leave them alone and insert external parts into main assembly and get rid of derived references.
Got to agree with @glen_dewsbury on this. The time to organize is at the very start of a project - not so much after the fact. Onshape will track all those parts no matter where they are. Organizing is for you , so you can more easily find things later (and I would go so far as to say that almost everyone organizes things a little differently, per their own personal tastes). I'm certainly not an expert, but I've gotten better over the years in this regard. You could set it up where each sub assembly is in it's own document (if you wanted) - The combinations are virtually endless. In the end, you just find something that works for you.
@jack_erhart Where are you getting those detailed prints? My problem has always been finding source material. Great work on those models
Thanks Rick,
Most of the original scans are from the DeGolyer library in Texas. Stanford has a good collection of original build records for Baldwin. Many connections developed through the years.
When you get to a point where things look like too busy for you. Here is a sample of move to new document. RMB sample fuel tank and select move to document. This will move the assy and part studio. Try this from the sample attached. All the links will be maintained.
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/dbe6f674c1e3458e3f8c9fe3/w/8acb4598c27db3e87598a006/e/2f516720bcd58f21d1247411
Your end goal is to make a bunch of trains, correct?
Are they all similar? Do they share a lot of components, or only a small portion.
If mostly similar, could you have a "generic" train that you model in subassemblies (one part studio per sub), and then derive those parts into new part studios each time you make a new train, and only change the areas that are different?
Or, assemble those generic parts into a new asm (for each new train), then edit-in-context that whole asm, and transform copy the parts into a new part studio, and make the minor changes to each part there.
All of the above is if all the trains are mostly similar.
If each train is drastically different, there may not be any advantage to sharing models between them.
Some of the parts are similar, but not very many. Could you explain what a subassembly is? And how to connect parts with mate connectors in an Assembly? Thank you
Subassembly is just a term for an assembly such as an engine that is not the completed product like a car.
Mating may be a bit much to explain in the forum. There is a training video available. If you have questions about the coarse then ask.
https://learn.onshape.com/learn/course/introduction-to-assembly-design/mating-parts/different-mate-types
That would be great if the person in the video didn't talk a thousand miles an hour. All of my models are static, so just knowing how to connect parts that don't move together. It seems that the connectors work differently in assemblies than they do in part studios. Am I missing something here?
Draw one bracket and insert in assembly as many times as needed. Placement is by mates. The advantage is to draw once and place many times in many assemblies. Update the one and all placements are updated. Implicit mate connectors are all over the parts(corners, hole centers, etc.) and where an explicit mate connecter has been placed in assembly or part studio. Yes there are differences from assembly to part studio. Mainly due to use function.
The courses fortunately have step by step examples to work through after the spiel done at your pace.
As Glen mentioned subassembly (subasm, or just sub for short) would be a car engine, and top level asm would be the whole car. (and actually a car engine is so complex, it would have a LOT of subasms).
Where this comes in handy for cad use is organization and division of labor. In a car company, there might be 3000 engineers working on a car, spread across let's say Ford and multiple Ford suppliers. The cars are broken up into small chunks to allow all those teams of engineers to work together, without stepping on each others's toes. They are also broken up into chunks for cad performance and cad organization.
In your case, you are doing all the labor. But the performance and organization still applies to you with something complex like a train.
I don't know what all the train parts are called, so continuing on the car example, there would be one team that works on each seat. This would be called the seat subasm. In Onshape the whole seat might be modeled in one part studio, then assembled into one assembly studio.
Another subasm would be the dashboard. In OS, the skin of the dashboard would probably be modeled into one studio. Then that skin would be broken up into several segments, like the glove box, instrument cluster, etc. Then those surfaces (glove box for example) would be derived into a new part studio just for the glove box. The eng team would work on all the glove box details like the inside, the hinges, the lock, etc. Those glove box parts would then be placed into a glove box subasm.
So back to your train, you'd want to think about what make sense to model together in one part studio, which would then typically be one subasm. You'd repeat this a bunch of times with different sections of the train. Then at the end, you'd have a "top level asm" where all the subasms are placed into.
This way (as one person), your part studios are not a ton of features and are easier to model and organize, and the performance stays high. So even though you are not in a big company, when you are modeling a huge project like a train, it's nice to pretend you are.