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.
Options
Helix feedback
kevin_quigley
Member Posts: 306 ✭✭✭
Just been having a play with the helix tool and have a few observations about this and others from modelling a very simple little plastic bottle closure part:
1. I don't like that the helix start location cannot be controlled - places the start of the helix at the extent of the cylindrical face whereas I generally need it to start on a specific plane. Couldn't get this to work at all. Contrast to SolidWorks where the helix is driven from the sketch. Take a look in my public files to see Helix test and compare to the SolidWorks file I sent Scott a while back.
2. Co-linear constraint - use co-incident instead? Sorry I find this really counter intuitive. Makes no sense at all.
3. Dimensioning of sketches is still poor. The text goes off everywhere, and requires multiple clicks to activate and edit.
4. Circular patterning only handles bodies not features? Surely not?
5. No wireframe view mode? I like the new shaded options but sometimes a simple wireframe view is the base/clearest option for edge picking. Needs wireframe.
6. Feature tree display. Guys I hate to be the one to say this but this is not working at all. Even in that little part with a few features it becomes unworkable and clunky. I'm all for simplicity but I have really hoped that Onshape would have come up with something new on this. The list of everything is nigh on impossible to efficiently navigate and control. Maybe it needs a separate pane or an overlay mode as used by Autodesk now, and others (as pioneered by Think 3 donkeys years ago).
We are still a long long way off being a productive tool for most.
1. I don't like that the helix start location cannot be controlled - places the start of the helix at the extent of the cylindrical face whereas I generally need it to start on a specific plane. Couldn't get this to work at all. Contrast to SolidWorks where the helix is driven from the sketch. Take a look in my public files to see Helix test and compare to the SolidWorks file I sent Scott a while back.
2. Co-linear constraint - use co-incident instead? Sorry I find this really counter intuitive. Makes no sense at all.
3. Dimensioning of sketches is still poor. The text goes off everywhere, and requires multiple clicks to activate and edit.
4. Circular patterning only handles bodies not features? Surely not?
5. No wireframe view mode? I like the new shaded options but sometimes a simple wireframe view is the base/clearest option for edge picking. Needs wireframe.
6. Feature tree display. Guys I hate to be the one to say this but this is not working at all. Even in that little part with a few features it becomes unworkable and clunky. I'm all for simplicity but I have really hoped that Onshape would have come up with something new on this. The list of everything is nigh on impossible to efficiently navigate and control. Maybe it needs a separate pane or an overlay mode as used by Autodesk now, and others (as pioneered by Think 3 donkeys years ago).
We are still a long long way off being a productive tool for most.
0
Comments
I second many.
1. I agree that defining helix by cylindrical/conical faces is backwards. I would also prefer a purely parametric approach. E.g.: Pick base position (3D point) and start angle > pick orientation (axis) > optionally set taper angle > set all other parameters > DONE.
3. Editing dimensions of sketches from the feature tree or model is still cumbersome. I want to edit dimensions of features in a graphical way too. Something like SolidWorks does now.
4. Patterning of features (Part Studio) and parts (Assembly) is very high on my wish list.
6. I agree the feature tree display needs to be revamped dramatically. At least it needs icons. And better display of dependencies. And clear display of which features are related to which parts. And... It needs to become a lot more intuitive.
Dries