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
Answers
A file format that retained these would be great.
Like other main-stream CAD systems if OnShape Native file format became recognised then other CAD systems would allow you to open Native OnShape directly. For example, in Solidworks you can open SolidEdge, Creo, Inventor native formats direct.
Again we have over 2TB of project CAD data, we are able to open older versions in newer versions of CAD, most mainstream CAD systems allow you to open files created with older versions of the software but not files created with future versions. So I do not understand the technical case made by OnShape that Native files are problematic due to software upgrades.
I'd be worried if native CAD data is solely stored on the cloud, on mirrored servers of an unknown location, its just madness when you consider the risk to confidentiality, Intellectual property and Professional indemnity insurance.
I will never place my business plan into the hands of software vendor promises, over the years I have seen too many promises broken, company buy-outs, acquisitions and insolvency.
Good luck Onshape users, I just hope Onshape harness the excellent opportunity they have created and consider the commercial needs of their users.
@matthew_menardI don't know of any for the reasons that @ilya_barandescribed in his post And yes, you are correct that the importation of other "native" CAD data into SolidWorks does not leave history intact as well as proprietary mating features. It's the same end result as exporting from the other CAD platforms as STEP or parasolid and then importing into SolidWorks. It just saves a step in the process without having to have the original authoring software installed.
@martin_carder and others. I hope you are open to having a change of mind on these matters. Here is how I have come to think about things generally over time. I did not always think as I do now on these matters, but here's an analogy that I think is kind of helpful:
I imagine when electrification of society came that many sawmills and other types of commercial entities were watching the connections being made and what could be done with electricity compared to something like their current waterwheel that was in house and they knew and they could control. I imagine some if not many were skeptical of the reliability of electrical power.. After all it was outside of their control. I could envision that some may have refused to migrate to having electrical power. However, the longer they did that the less competitive they became. The longer they told their customers the reason you pay higher prices and wait longer for that product we offer is because we don't use that unreliable, untrustworthy electrical power. At some point the customers figured out that those mills had thrown the baby out with the bathwater and they then found other places that delivered better quality at a better price in a better timeframe.
I think engineering and design has been dragging their feet for too long on these matters because sometimes as engineers we have a problem of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Onshape and platforms like it represent the electrification of the engineering and design world. Don't cling too tightly to your waterwheels.
Ultimately though, if the pros and cons don't add up to something that is OK with you or your organization, OnShape probably isn't the tool for you. That's where I'm at for my day job. The company I work for deals with ITAR/export control and that leaves anything cloud related out in the cold. Multipart studios would be perfect for the components we make, so I'm hoping maybe OS will do something with the Amazon Gov Cloud that will make ITAR compliance easier. In the meantime, I'm doing tests and general playing around on my own time in OnShape because I see a lot of future potential, even if I can't use it professionally right now.
This forces those providers into a rather unnatural "annual major upgrade" business model. #
Onshape's offering is intended to cater to those who do NOT have that need. Onshape are putting their shirt on a superior outcome from continual improvement by small increments. Among many theoretical advantages of their model: a proportion of real world models (by virtue of being shared with Onshape support, or being "public") can be tested offline to make sure those improvements do not break them.
# Despite their best efforts, the legacy "major upgrade" sometimes goes pear-shaped: sometimes an important client will have to "sit out" an entire upgrade cycle, while the CAD developer scrabbles around trying to ascertain why some of that client's crucial models fail to rebuild in the new version.
The "annual major upgrade" business model becomes highly unattractive to many clients, particularly when the software matures, and stasis sets it. It seems to me that stasis is almost inseparable from the business model, eventually, because the legacy issues accumulate and strangle development.
So essentially it seems to me like two different types of horse for two different types of course.