The Best Onshape Workflow! (Top down? Bottom up? Hybrid?)

Comments

• MichaelPascoe Member Posts: 2,628 PRO

  October 29 edited October 29

  .

  Here are some example workflows and concepts to get things rolling:

  .

  Bottom-up design • Build individual part studios separately and assemble them later using mates.

  Top-down design • Drive parts from higher-level references such as layout sketches.

  Hybrid design (top-down + bottom-up) • Integrate both contextual and standalone modeling strategies in one project.

  In-context editing (⚠️Warning to new users, be careful when using In-Context edits. If done incorrectly, you may destabilize time itself opening up a wormhole to another dark dimension causing untold amounts of impossible work for yourself.)
  • Edit a part while referencing surrounding geometry in its assembly context.

  Multi-part studio design • Model several interrelated parts within a single Part Studio.

  Derived parts and geometry • Reuse or reference geometry between studios while maintaining associations.

  Variable studios (shared design parameters) • Store and reuse variables globally across parts, features, and assemblies.

  Layout-driven assemblies • Use 2D layout sketches or construction references to position components.

  Configuration-based modeling • Use configuration tables and logic to define part or assembly variants.

  Template-based modeling • Start new designs from pre-defined part or assembly templates for consistency.

  Custom Feature workflows (FeatureScript) • Extend or automate design logic with user-defined custom features.

  App-driven workflows • For specialized automated tasks.

  Data-driven or API-connected modeling • Use external data sources (e.g. spreadsheets) to control geometry.

  Surface and hybrid solid-surface modeling • Combine surface tools with solids for complex freeform geometry.

  Import and repair workflows • Bring in external CAD models (STEP, Parasolid, etc.) and fix or adapt them.

  .

  For the first 3 products, here are some example workflows that could be an efficient way to do them:

  🏠 House

  • Top-down design
    • Layout sketches and Variable studios (wall height, roof pitch)
    • Multi-part studio for walls, floors, and roof
    • Derived parts / custom features for doors, windows

  .

  🚗 Car

  • Hybrid design (top-down + bottom-up)
    • Master sketch or skeleton for chassis and mounts. Variable studio.
    • A single, static, In-context edit for frame and panels
    • Imported / insert standard content parts (wheels, bolts, engine, etc..)

  .

  📱 Phone

  • Hybrid (Top-down + multi-part studio)
    • Multi-part studio for shell, buttons, and screen
    • Top-down control for overall proportions
    • Derived geometry for PCB and battery
    • A single in-context edit for ports and button alignment

  .

  
  Learn more about the Gospel of Christ  ( Here )
  
  CADSharp  -  We make custom features and integrated Onshape apps!   Learn How to FeatureScript Here 🔴
  

  1
• Derek_Van_Allen_BD Member Posts: 306 PRO

  October 30

  Onshape themselves have put out a decent article discussing many different top-down approaches but for my money the Space Allocation method they show is hands down the best one. At least for my industry. Used properly it's like having a master sketch but with the benefit of stable robust IDs for faces and bodies at your disposal and not limited to the suffocating confines of 2 dimensional geometry. I don't know about the rest of y'all but I produce 3 dimensional objects, and my clients often ask for geometry that cannot be accurately described with 2d projections alone.
  
  I have modified a bit of the approach from this example though and try to stick to a 1:1 master blob part to part studio rule, and always insert my studios back into the assembly as rigid because the number of parts in my studios is always fluctuating and I need assemblies to adjust dynamically.

  Derek Van Allen | Engineering Consultant | Meddler

  1
• edward_petrillo Member Posts: 88 EDU

  October 30

  We are a FIRST robotics team (293), not a company- there's a pretty big community of other teams like us using OS. I appreciate the opportunity to comment and learn from the experts. A typical robot contains 200 or more parts, half fabricated, half COTS,.multilayered subassemblies, lots of moving parts. Our environment is severely time constrained- 6-8 weeks from a blank canvas to a finished product, with strict external constraints imposed by fabrication rules and game environment. I have seen examples that run the full range of the approaches you' describe. There are many shared libraries and applications that permit bottom-up design by selecting parts, many of them configured, and inserting into an assembly. Some elite teams appear to use SW in-full-blown professional mode and only use OS to share. I strongly prefer a top-down approach.
  The most exciting recent development has been @GregBrown's Published Geometry Feature. The RC car in his YT video maps quite well onto an FRC robot. It enables a bunch of adolescents to work in parallel using a well-constructed skeleton, strictly controlled, as the reference for a top down approach. We're working to implement this workflow in time for our January kickoff.

  1