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.
Vehicle coordinate system
martin_kopplow
Member Posts: 532 PRO
Is there any chance we might get a vehicle world coordinate system in Onshape any time at all?
I am at a design job for a vehicle again, and having left and right or front and rear just mixed up, and the X-Axis pointing the wrong direction, is just so annoying.
Fo those who might have missed it:
- In a vehicle (cars, bikes, boats, rockets), when we look at it from the REAR, the direction of movement is away from us to the front, and thus we have the left side on the left and the right side on the right. Everyting is referring to the direction of movement.
- In a static object (buildings, machinery, infrastructure), if we look at it from the FRONT, we have the right side on the right and the left side on the left, so that is just the other way round! Everything is referring to the direction we look at it.
This causes additional effort when exchanging CAD data and makes the view cube, the default work planes and most drawing view names misleading at least. I can't follow client's conventions when it comes to world axis' orientation at that. I am really annoyed by the fact that I have to explain the oddity to everybody looking at my designs time and again. "No, this is called the front view, even though it shows your car from the rear, for I am using an architectural design package for the job!" How professional is that?
Comments
I can understand how that could mess with your head!
I'm going to ask some stupid questions because the more I think about it the more i don't get!
You know onshape isn't an architectural package right? The default works for most of us designing parts and assemblies.
How do your clients know it's called the front view?
Would relabeling the view cube be the solution?
If it's on a drawing would a switch from 1st to 3rd angle do the job?
Why label the drawing views? That's not standard engineering drawing practice, but i guess might be in your line of work.
If it's on the model why can't the rear of the car be at the rear of the model?
Have you raised an improvement request?
What is the proposed solution?
I would soooo extremely support this improvement!
@Ste_Wilson for me it's just a matter of how you interact with the product. If it's something like a phone that you hold or look at the "front" faces you and the "right" is on your right, just like the view cube. When you're doing a car (or bicycle) the "right" side should be the side that's on your right when you are riding, which is currently labeled "left" on the view cube. It is especially important when collaborating, because changing the orientation of a model is next to impossible later in the design process, and I've worked on more than one project where things had confusing names and conversations because of this. Is it "left bracket" or "right bracket"? The cube says left and the object itself says right. Hilarity ensues.
@Ste_Wilson Yes, @EvanReese is about right. It is a matter of consistency throughout the design process and especially the communication about it. In OS we don't just share files any more, we also share viewing rights, that is a client can look into and interact with our design. That makes a huge difference. I older CAD, where I would just have sent an exported model or a drawing in a PDF, it would not really matter (except myswelf and colleagues), but now the client or supplier gets confused, too. I talk to him on the phone or in a video call and I tell him to look at it from the left, and he hits the "Left" label on the view cube and wooosh! he's actually in the right view. I expect to get a mirrored part delivered any time.
Talking drawing views: I don't usually name them, except there is particular reason. Still, when creating a new sheet, Onshape will ask me which view I want to insert, and it asks me about the default view NAME, which will be wrong in 95% of the cases for me. It will also name referenced views, E.G. for section or detail views. So I have a detail view and the prperties dialog says it is based on the left view, but that is actually my right view. Can it get any more confusing?
Then I create a surface from two or more sketch curves: One is the left view and I might call the sketch "Sketch air intake left " but it is viewed from the right, one curve is the top view, one is the front view, which is actually my rear view, or the left view that is the right view. It does not make any sense at all to name views or planes when the naming is not consistent. I'd rather have X-plane, Y-plane and Z-plane with the corresponding X-view, Y-view and Z-view, for that would at least be logical. I'd still take some getting used to, but then it would carry through.
Ste's questions:
Question: If it's on a drawing would a switch from 1st to 3rd angle do the job?
Changing from 1st angle to 3rd angle projection, as proposed, would break yet another convention and only add to the confusion. So that is clearly not valid workaround.
Question: If it's on the model why can't the rear of the car be at the rear of the model?
Answer: Because if it was so, the left of the car would be at the right of the model. One's gotta die one death. Choose one.
Question: Would relabeling the view cube be the solution?
Answer: Yes, if the default planes and view names would also change their labels in the process, it would be a 75% solution. The remaining 25% would be on account of the XYZ axis orientation that could still be off.
I know Onshape isn't meant to be an architectural CAD package, but when this is that case: Why is vehicle design neglected?
I have raised an improvent request long ago, but it appears I am the only one who makes things that move. :0/
@martin_kopplow thanks for taking the time to reply! Makes more sense now! :)