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.

Improvements to Onshape - September 19th, 2025

13»

Comments

  • aeromorrisonaeromorrison Member Posts: 69 PRO
    edited September 25

    Both folders and labels have benefits—even together. However, the current issue with labels is that they are user-specific. From the Onshape help:

    "All labels are user-specific, and no other user sees the labels you apply to documents and publications, regardless of permissions."

    https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/labels.htm

    Because of this, it dramatically reduces the utility of labels currently.

  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,978 PRO

    Right, that's why I completely gave up on making a library of labels.

    It doesn't share with others, and having parts marked as library or whatever just gives a short list when others add to the library. Having a library folder made more sense since everyone always sees the same items and hierarchy.

    Having the ability to have company wide labels would be a huge improvement and would help with onboarding. They would still have a full library of folders and such, but the most common items would have a label to jump directly to them.

    I only label a couple odd things, like drawing blocks or something I search a lot that is deep into a folder chain. I just checked, looks like I only have 3 labels total, I think I only use 1 of those commonly

  • robert_stilesrobert_stiles Member Posts: 143 PRO

    Can we have CLS section sizes please (Canadian Lumber Size). Most merchants in the UK don't stock those metric sizes. Even the imperial sizes are not often stocked in softwood, its all CLS sizes now, which I understood was due to reducing splinters and H&S.

  • MDesignMDesign Member Posts: 1,134 PRO

    The 2"x 4" is actually 1.5"x3.5" if that's what your referring to. It is a bit misleading to have it labeled the way it is. It should be labeled 2x4 without the inch marks. and/or have the actual size in parenthesis.

  • robert_stilesrobert_stiles Member Posts: 143 PRO

    yep, thats what I mean. It is misleading
    The metric one might be better labelled as 38x89 cls in parenthesis, for example. Because that's a size that everyone knows over here (which is 1.5"x3.5"). I've not measured the section sizes of the frame it builds, sorry. I just looked at the metric options and though that I can't actually buy those sizes with out getting them custom planed from larger stock.

  • Derek_Van_Allen_BDDerek_Van_Allen_BD Member Posts: 269 PRO
    edited September 30

    This is the only reason I have my own pipe size frame profile is so I can list the actual dimensions of the pipe and the DIN equivalent name for the same exact product so I can delete conversations from my life about how 2" pipe has no dimensions on it that measure 2" and yes, that European cartridge filter will definitely fit it because it was designed to.

    The number of times someone has told me confidently and incorrectly that pipe was measured by ID is staggering.

  • kevin_elliottkevin_elliott Member Posts: 8 PRO

    "The number of times someone has told me confidently and incorrectly that pipe was measured by ID is staggering."

    Well, pipe IS sized by ID …. but NOMINAL ID, and it depends on the schedule of the wall thickness.

    It is MADE/controlled by the OD, however, so maybe that's what you mean.

    footnote: Assuming IPS standard… CTS is OD-controlled but true to size on ID for standard wall thickness

  • Derek_Van_Allen_BDDerek_Van_Allen_BD Member Posts: 269 PRO
    edited October 6

    This is what I'm talking about. Outside dimensions of pipe diameters have always been the controlled dimension since the Briggs system standardized things in the early industrial revolution, and pipes of different schedules in the same nominal dimension all have the same OD with the wall thickness resulting in a different ID. The nominal designation was derived from an era where every shop had their own forging dies and practices with varying dimensions from shop to shop and batch to batch even from the same shop. Even back then the outer dimension was the controlled feature for the production process. The NPS sizes just happen to be the die dimensions that one shop was using as an internal standard and published as a compatibility thing for other shops to use during the Civil War.

    This being the case, when someone grabs a tape measure and checks the inside of some unknown stock that might be pipe or might be tube I die a little inside.

  • Nick_HolzemNick_Holzem Member Posts: 166 PRO

    Sub-Assembly Bom Callouts is a step in the right direction. For our top level assemblies we like to have a flattened top-level BOM on sheet 1, then a shortened BOM on each sheet for sections of our product, this shortened BOM containing the items highlighted on that sheet only. We want the numbering to remain consistent with the top level BOM on each sheet. We have Split Bom, however when we have a same item that needs to appear on multiple sheets we can't split the BOM efficiently to include it on each sheet in a shortened BOM.

    Can you add an option for Sub Assembly BOM to reference the item numbering of a top-level BOM? This way we could use the sub-assembly structure and BOM but customize the item numbering to reference our top-level BOM.

    Another option, might be create a BOM by selection. So on our focused sheets, a create BOM option by selecting item callouts (or the physical items) from a drawing view. The item numbering would follow reference already set up in that drawing view.

    @mlaflecheCAD @PeteYodis @Vajrang_Parvate

  • FG_BaasFG_Baas Member Posts: 4 PRO

    What is the easiest way to Assembly Mirror but have independent motion? For example on humanoid robot arms and legs?

  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,978 PRO

    Mirror the parts in a part studio, then assemble them independently

  • Derek_Van_Allen_BDDerek_Van_Allen_BD Member Posts: 269 PRO
    edited October 10

    Lefty Flip workflow if I've ever heard one. Do your mates and assembly once and then apply Lefty Flip to all the relevant studios.

  • bryan_lagrangebryan_lagrange Member, User Group Leader Posts: 914 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like we are at the 3 week mark…….Here comes sheet metal loft @sebastian_glanzner :)

    Bryan Lagrange
    Twitter: @BryanLAGdesign

  • EvanReeseEvanReese Member, Mentor Posts: 2,591 PRO
    Evan Reese
    The Onsherpa | Reach peak Onshape productivity
    www.theonsherpa.com
  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,978 PRO
  • sebastian_glanznersebastian_glanzner Member, Developers Posts: 457 PRO

    @bryan_lagrange
    It feels like we get these things before sheet metal loft:

    GTA VI
    Half Life 3
    Superintelligence AI

    😁

  • bryan_lagrangebryan_lagrange Member, User Group Leader Posts: 914 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @sebastian_glanzner to add to that

    • New episodes of House Dragon
    • Dune 3
    • Playstation 6
    Bryan Lagrange
    Twitter: @BryanLAGdesign

  • bryan_lagrangebryan_lagrange Member, User Group Leader Posts: 914 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I should also look at my @john_mcclary bingo card to pick items that will get me closer to Bingo!!!!!

    Bryan Lagrange
    Twitter: @BryanLAGdesign

  • Derek_Van_Allen_BDDerek_Van_Allen_BD Member Posts: 269 PRO

    Just sent out an order of lofted sheet metal parts last week using a really obtuse workflow, so if it comes out today I'm actually gonna be a little annoyed. Gimme the 3 weeks to feel like I did something special.

  • AngleCAngleC Member, pcbaevp Posts: 12 PRO

    I totally agree with this post. Give the ability to share labels across the Enterprise (today only personal labels exist). Make them multi-level and folders can go away. The ideal example is Gmail. No more team disagreements on how something should be categorized (folder location) as labels would provide viewing as if it were in multiple locations simultaneously.

Sign In or Register to comment.