McMaster Carr PLUG IN for ONSHAPE

Seymur_Dadashov · November 2022

Just want to know if there is a plan to add McMaster Carr plug in to allow for easier import of all their models rather than wasting time downloading and building those libraries manually. Has been a huge waste of time to properly build MMC fasteners for large scale production and track their P/Ns nicely. Fusion 360 has had this plug in for so long and it is a game changer. Hopefully this is implemented sooner than all the beta render, simulation and generative design stuff that is coming out since those are nice to have but don't nearly provide as much value as a proper MMC plugin.

amin_hasani454 · December 2022

This is one of the features I miss from Fusion 360. It was super easy to import MMC parts directly inside the Assembly. I upvoted your request, and hopefully they'll come up with a plugin or Feature Script to connect MMC parts to assembly and BOM.

Cedar_F · July 2023

Very much agree - our company spends a lot of time downloading/finding/manually importing McMaster parts to Onshape. An integration would be fantastic to be able to insert directly in the Assembly tab's "Insert" functionality.

I understand that Onshape needs a static model/metadata to use, so one method could be copying and autogenerating a part studio from McMaster.

Bonus: Standard Content mapping from/to McMaster parts.

EvanReese · July 2023

I'd use this a lot.

MichaelPascoe · July 2023

Here is the improvement request in case anyone wants to vote for it:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/11353/partner-with-mcmaster-carr-for-mechanical-parts

eric_pesty · July 2023

I would also contact McMaster about it as it might help getting the interest up on both ends!

I did a while back (using the "contact us" link) and they said they would pass it on to Devs.

bryan_lagrange · July 2023

I use it nearly everyday.

+1

christian_petty · July 2023

Last time I contacted MMC they said API access was a paid feature for the full catalog. Maybe they’d be willing to create something like they did for SOLIDWORKS, but it may be difficult to do this without their early support.

JoeORourke · July 2023

Definitely include me as someone that would like to see this feature. I did email McMaster-Carr about this and they responded with they'll have their webmaster look at it.

S1mon · July 2023

Similarly, I had this exchange in July...

To support at McMaster: "Please create an App for Onshape with similar capabilities to the Solidworks add-in."

Response: "Sure thing. Thank you for the feedback. I will share this with our web team for further review."

Lucas_Kuhns · July 2023

I can't imagine how much of the sales McMaster gets is from them making it so easy for engineers to get CAD models that buying from them becomes the default source for early production of a product. Very impressive and well-deserved for sure.

bryan_lagrange · July 2023

I asked this question to @Aaron_Magnin about a McMaster Carr plugin. He can better explain the road blocks they are facing with McMaster Carr. While we are on the topic of Apps.....aren't we due a what's new in the App store?

nick_papageorge_dayjob · July 2023

I used fusion for hobby at home for a year a few years back and it had the McMaster integration. I actually preferred browsing the McMaster catalog on my own, in my own browser window, rather than the way fusion did it. Often times when I’m searching for something in McMaster I don’t know exactly what I’m looking for, and will have a few browsers going to compare options, cost, size, etc.

steve_shubin · July 2023

Along the lines of what @nick_papageorge073 said, I’ve been looking at stuff from a particular large photo/video store lately

It’s easier for me to find stuff through their browser website, then it is to find things through their app.

So how something is implemented can make a big difference

adrian_vlzkz · July 2023

We'd pay for this to exist!

S1mon · July 2023

I've never used the Solidworks McMaster plugin, but I can total imagine a badly implemented tool being more painful than the website. The main interesting thing would be saving some of the overhead of downloading the STEP and uploading the STEP, especially if there are a lot of parts you need. If it optionally downloaded the 2D PDF at the same time, that would be really nice. Setting the metadata such as material(s) could also be advantageous.

eric_pesty · July 2023

It would be great if the "actual" website opened in a panel and you could just insert in one step, maybe an option to map some properties in the process.
The most valuable would be if it was managed more like "library" to prevent duplicates

S1mon · August 2023

Not exactly what we want/need, but a new Chrome extension lets us spin parts in the browser before downloading and even do an AR view on mobile devices.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mcmaster-ar/bnffdobmeimicedphbdcibhllollniie

Aaron_Magnin · August 2023

bryan_lagrange said:

I asked this question to @Aaron_Magnin about a McMaster Carr plugin. He can better explain the road blocks they are facing with McMaster Carr. While we are on the topic of Apps.....aren't we due a what's new in the App store?

Hey Bryan, sorry for the late reply...was on vacation. I believe McMaster is the roadblock when it comes to making integrations, but I know for a fact that hasn't stopped others from building tools. And my role has changed a bit, so "What's New in the App store" may still be coming at some point, but as time permits. Glad one person is missing them! I was going to plug that AR tool, but @S1mon beat me to it!

michael_zeagler · August 2023

I've spoken with McMaster reps in the past when they came through on a push to somehow better facilitate robotics companies. It didn't make a ton of sense to me but they somehow wanted to be even more of the retailer of first resort.

They said they basically have a sweatshop of CAD users recreating each part in each platform. If that's the case I'd imagine Onshape is just too much of a dark horse to warrant being included into that system, especially considering it wouldn't mesh with their website. I'd argue that it would be even easier, as they could take all the work and include it in a plug-in with a trivial amount of work, but it's a big ship.

The all-cloud method is clearly superior in this case, but inertia in CAD software is one of the worst in any category.

Aaron_Magnin · August 2025

If you're still interested in a McMaster Carr app or integration, could you send me an email at amagnin@onshape .com?

Thanks!

owen_wasson · September 2025

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/93898#Comment_93898

Yeah, if you are trying to find a product that works, it's better to browse, but often, I know the specs or even the specific part I need, and I just don't want to search for the .step, or redownload it. So a parts library where I can search for a part, or sort by category, would be nice.

martin_kopplow · January 2

Web part libraries are here to stay, so a serious CAD system can not possibly ignore them.

I am not throwing my hat in the ring for McMaster Carr, because I am not in the US and so they are less significant to me. There are countless other supplier libraries around, though, in all parts of the world.

As of today, the implementation of such libraries or catalogues into Onschape needs a closer look. The current state is by no means ready for prime time (That is a diplomatic way to say they actually suck).

The apps currently available are badly maintained, hardly integrated, slow, have weird interfaces, less functions than their web counterparts, and ridiculous search algorithms. They seem to be there to rather protect their precious stache of parts behind ads, than to make them available.

I have a dream where I just hit the 'Insert' button and use the 'web' option, which takes me to a browser window where I select from a list of bookmarks or manually navigate to my favourite supplier, find the part, maybe configure it to my likings and hit the 'download to onshape' button, after which the part will show up in a new part studio with a variable studio already in place. The part properties would already have the 'vendor' field filled in and the part's order number and URL would show up in the BOM. There would be an option to 'attach spec sheet' and 'attach quotation'.

For web parts inserted like this, the context menu would have an 'edit web part' menu item that takes me back to the web site I inserted it from so I could easily make a new configuration to replace my current one, and that would ideally preserve placement and possibly MCs already applied to the part. THAT is something AI could be used for without risking any brain damage to overpatronized users.

Now we have cloud CAD, the whole web needs to be unlocked and connected as a source. There is no use in making limited apps for certain suppliers only.

ruth_ivimey_cook · January 2

I would really like to see a variety of standard parts available in OnShape, including but not limited to Nuts and Bolts, Screws, Metal Inserts (for plastic), cable fasteners, clips, and more. I'm UK based and so McMaster is not on my radar, but Mouser, Farnell, RS and others are.

It would be great if these could be available as "hit Insert, select part, Done" with selection based on typed entry (e.g. Select… M5 CS 20mm would show what M5 bolts were available in the lib) or visual browsing.

I would agree that being able to change the spec from e.g. M5 to M4, or 20mm to 22mm, is a must-have, without having to delete, search for, re-insert and re-place the part. If the change results in "issues" then let us see them and fix after the change (or revert the change with Undo).

It would be helpful to me to (also) be able to add parts from well-known suppliers, for me Adafruit or Raspberry Pi would be obvious choices who are both committed to open specifications & data, but also to be able to form part libraries myself (open-access if needed).

bloxy_bloxy · January 2

Agreed — a native McMaster-Carr plugin would be a massive quality-of-life improvement.

Derek_Van_Allen_BD · January 2

On the one hand, every time I see this thread bumped by a new comment I feel validation that other people are asking for this integration and that the devs get another reminder that there's interest. On the other hand I keep holding out hope that the update is coming from someone with an Onshape logo next to their name and get a little sad when it's not.

martin_kopplow · January 3

Again: A McMaster Carr Plugin would sure be nice for some, but useless for most. The need (which undoubtedly exists) has to be adressed at a more general level: We need an easier and more interactive way to insert web parts from all suppliers.

GWS50 · January 4

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/125112#Comment_125112

Agreed. being based in the UK Mcmaster Carr is useful as a general part insertion tool, but not practical for ordering the parts. Often the parts readily available in another country are slightly different in design. A more general approach would suit more designers.

ilya_baran · January 4

We're well aware of this need and are working on it, but as to when it gets released, you all know how we are with time commitments to functionality.

EvanReese · January 5

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/125138#Comment_125138

It's enough for me to know it's on the roadmap! Thanks, Ilya.

Derek_Van_Allen_BD · January 5

Yay logo post! @ilya_baran having worked with the McMaster catalog files extensively I imagine a lot of the hang-up with an integration of their models specifically is that their whole database is modeled in Solidworks with configuration tables, much like the standard content library in Onshape is. I've gone through the trouble of manually rebuilding their configuration tables in my Solidworks database and it makes the data management very streamlined because everything is ID stable due to being built from the same source. Contrast this with the Fusion integration of McMaster Carr parts which don't support those same configurations, so you have to reassign references every time you switch sizes of hardware within the same part family.

This suggests that they didn't go through the trouble of remodeling everything in a Fusion native environment when they did that integration and probably wouldn't for an Onshape one either, but a configured library is an order of magnitude more useful than a non-configured one. I've been working with @MichaelPascoe and the folks over at CADsharp on a solution for configurable import geometry that serves as our own internal replacement for the McMaster catalog that saves us from having to remodel everything from scratch. The method generalizes to CAD from any source as well, so the requests in this thread for other suppliers might also be fulfilled by the same approach.

McMaster Carr PLUG IN for ONSHAPE

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories