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.
Comments
@NeilCooke Is there a way (or will there be a way) to use Items and Wiring along side each other? We'd like to have the option of modeling some routes but also keeping track of others without modeling the geometry. If the base part number for, say, some tubing, is the same, but in some cases we manually enter a length for an Item, could we also use that same number with the Wiring features?
A corollary to that, is tubing for things like pneumatics routing an intended function of these tools? It seems like the documentation and features have focused on electrical wiring, but I'm not sure if there's anything that prevents it from being useful for flexible tubing.
Simon Gatrall | Product Development, Engineering, Design, Onshape | Ex- IDEO, PCH, Unagi, Carbon | LinkedIn
Is anyone else having issues with adding nodes when editing a wire route? Since the latest Onshape update, I can only add them to the first section of a wire, before any clips. If I try adding to any other sections, the wire simply disappears. I have tried nudging them along to the correct point, but the node seems to cease to exist.
We've been using it for flexible tubing as well, with the strip lengths set to 0, and then shelling from both ends to get an accurate mass where necessary. It's very hand for getting a reasonable first pass approximation for length at the very least!
Changelog for release 1.204.0
⭐️ Added Connector descriptions, layout directions, and mass in anticipation of future capabilities
⭐️ Added Connector type "Splice"
⭐️ Added drag and "use previous" to Connector > insert feature
⭐️ Added Splice prefix designation to Wire data feature
⭐️ Added Splice workflow to Wire ref and Wire route features
Changelog for release 1.204.1
⭐️ "Link to previous" option now maintains each connector's position
Based on user feedback, the behaviour of connector placement has changed. If you have used the new capabilites introduced in 1.204.0 earlier this week, then your connectors may have moved - please check.
Changelog for release 1.204.2
⭐️ Clips now have the same metadata and positioning features as Connectors
@NeilCooke two quick questions/update requests for this wire routing feature if it would be possible to implement:
@Marc_Cacioppo
Changelog for release 1.208.0
⭐️ Added route tessellation quality option to the Wire data feature
This was intended to go out as part of a bigger release, but I brought it forward by request. This option will modify the tessellation quality of all the routes in a Part Studio to improve performance of large harnesses. Any harnesses that have had their tessellation quality changed manually (through edit appearance) will not be affected. Default is Auto.
Happy new year. Forgive me if this topic have been addressed in previous comments.
Is there a way for ONSHAPE to calculate the mass of the end-to-end harness? I have pre-define the mass of the connectors but after completing the wire route it looks like it doesn't have the capability to calculate the total mass other than defining/overriding the mass of the harness as a composite part.
Sorry not completed that work yet.
Hi Neil, is there any update on the "flatten harness" feature and if that is still planned? Do you have an estimated release date? Thank you!
Yes it is still planned and in progress, but I can't give an estimated release date, but soon-ish (measured in weeks, rather than months/years). Testing on customer-created harnesses has thrown up some major issues that are proving tricky to resolve.
Hi Neil,
I recently found out that OnShape have a Routing Curve feature in the toolbox. I believe the advantage of using the wire/cable feature is that you can insert more information on the cable design (like the pin outs) and allowing you to work with clips, and have branches coming out of a single connector. But if I am looking to just model a cable to determine the routing path for a future cable (not yet designed) cable then the Routing Curve is good enough to use. Is there any other reason why using the Cable/wire feature is better than the routing curve and vice versa?
@Firman_Bancroft the Cable/wire feature is certainly advantageous for logging that additional information, and for easily referencing existing connectors. The other helpful thing it does is establish end-curvature, and enable cables/bundles in a streamlined way.
If you just are looking to visibly route a wire through space, Routing Curve + Sweep is great (can use Derivative to set end-curvature). I also really like this 3D Hose Routing custom feature, as it make it very easy to connect, maintain bend radius, and add mid-way points/vertices. Link here: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/2562cfdeb83b82031ed5aaec/v/d03488be0bf34232869e7a96/e/f638dbd54fbbe702b3fae0a5
@NeilCooke, just submitted a ticket about what looks like an issue with "follow first route" not respecting the clip order from the first route when set to "follow clip order"…
I'm guessing the ticket will find it's way to you but here it is anyway… https://onshape.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/409147
Wouldn't surprise me - "follow first route" was added at the start and i never really kept up QA on it because usage was low. I'll take a look at the ticket.
@eric_pesty fixed the "follow first route" issue in 1.212.0
Thanks, it's still not working for me but it might be partially my fault…
Because I have three refs, my "second" route ended up defined starting from the other end (ie.. the from and to refs are swapped) from the one I am trying to follow. I can see the route is literally following the same clip order as the first one from the wire route feature, but in this case it happens to be exactly backwards!
I guess you would have to define the "route" as having no direction and/or check the "to" and "from" refs rather than just use the order of the clips in the first route for this to work...