Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape, CAD, maker project and design.

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.

Step version on export ap214 ... 242

3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,111 PRO
edited December 2017 in General
I suppose Onshape exports step ap 214 which is enough for data transfer between two modelers. 

Step ap 242 would hold more information and would be better choice for local archive. If I have understood things correctly ap 242 would hold also material information and other manufacturing information that could be read also with ERP or such to recognize and handle the archived files better than 'dumb solids'.  



For me it is not time for writing any IRs for this but I would like to raise some conversation on step ap 242 and it's benefits against 214.

Some information can be found here: http://www.ap242.org/
//rami
Tagged:

Comments

  • mbartlett21mbartlett21 Member Posts: 466 EDU
    I'd rather use parasolid
  • brucebartlettbrucebartlett Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 1,393 PRO
    This is very interesting Rami, looks like some big benefits here if ap242 does have the ability to export more than just the dumb solids with names and colours. It would be really enticing if more information could be reliably transferred between CAD systems. The reality is that there are always going to be multiple CAD systems and the better they can transfer information the better it will be for users. 
    Engineer ı Product Designer ı Onshape Consulting Partner
    Twitter: @onshapetricks  & @babart1977   
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,111 PRO
    @brucebartlett
    Yes, especially mating features would be awesome since it would enable using moving models between cad systems. Complete part feature history might be too much to ask. 
    It would be also nice to archive models / projects so that they hold manufacturing data if you ever need to get them back to production.
    //rami
  • brucebartlettbrucebartlett Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 1,393 PRO
    3dcad said:
    Absolutely, this is very exciting stuff. So much info is lost in the current exporting system whether it be step or parasolid, huge room for improvements. I love the concept of Onshape and sharing native doc's with the manufacturer but in practice, I keep finding that they just want to stay with there existing CAD system :'( . I am still hopeful that as more user become knowable in Onshape and Onshape improves, people will be more willing to take it on but as of this point, I am constantly asked for step or para-solid files as this is the normal way to do business. 
    Engineer ı Product Designer ı Onshape Consulting Partner
    Twitter: @onshapetricks  & @babart1977   
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,111 PRO
    I'm still struggling to get those 3d models in any format :cry:
    They always think that I'm gonna build those cnc machines or components/mechanism myself - if they used Onshape they could share and still keep the control on models.
    //rami
Sign In or Register to comment.