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.
Where can I get nuts and bolts?
bill_rayner
OS Professional Posts: 36 PRO
The certified libraries are rubbish. Is uploading an old SW library the best solution?
Tagged:
0
Best Answers
-
Another approach worth mentioning.I've been playing around with making a company standard content custom feature. It allows you to place components at target sketch points or mate connectors and where appropriate cut voids for them to fit into.For stuff you have good models of it's a nice way to wrap them up into an easy to use library.
The really nice thing is they can be configured just like any other feature (unlike a derive), so if you want a version of a product with pressure transducers and another with mil-spec connectors it's just a config setting.Cheers, Owen S.Business Systems and Configuration Controller
HWM-Water Ltd7 -
I had an assembly that was using imported McMaster parts and I tried switching it over to Onhape std components and I gave up. It's just really hard to find stuff with cross over standards. I have to have another browser window open to search stds to try and work out if I've got the correct part. IMHO it should work like a webstore with common parts that adhere to standards not selecting out of various standards.Jason_S said:@bill_rayner, what can we add to make it not rubbish?
5
Answers
-
bill_rayner said:The certified libraries are rubbish. Is uploading an old SW library the best solution?There is a thread here to request additional content:-Not sure about importing whole libraries in one hit but individual parts are no problem. I'm sure someone knowledgeable will be along shortly.Cheers, Owen S.Business Systems and Configuration Controller
HWM-Water Ltd2 -
I've created my own libraries for options not available in standard content such as sheet metal screws, threaded rod, and rivnuts. I haven't had any problems with the nuts and washers provided. What are you looking for?
1 -
Another approach worth mentioning.I've been playing around with making a company standard content custom feature. It allows you to place components at target sketch points or mate connectors and where appropriate cut voids for them to fit into.For stuff you have good models of it's a nice way to wrap them up into an easy to use library.The really nice thing is they can be configured just like any other feature (unlike a derive), so if you want a version of a product with pressure transducers and another with mil-spec connectors it's just a config setting.Cheers, Owen S.Business Systems and Configuration Controller
HWM-Water Ltd7 -
-
I had an assembly that was using imported McMaster parts and I tried switching it over to Onhape std components and I gave up. It's just really hard to find stuff with cross over standards. I have to have another browser window open to search stds to try and work out if I've got the correct part. IMHO it should work like a webstore with common parts that adhere to standards not selecting out of various standards.Jason_S said:@bill_rayner, what can we add to make it not rubbish?
5 -
My apologies Jason, I was referring to the actual collections of parts your code apparently accesses being rubbish for nuts and bolts. I needed 2 different cap screw sizes in a hurry and could only get multiples of the first one I selected.
But I was hoping for a featurescript solution, and seem to remember one being worked on a few years back. I'm quite happy to have the parts dumped at the origin so I can place it with connectors. Is that around?0 -
-
I tend to get all defensive over the Onshape staff. They're such a nice, approachable bunch of folks that seem to care immensely about developing their product. I remember the first question I posted on the forum... I was expecting some faceless corporation that didn't engage with their users, but just perhaps another end-user could help me out. What actually happened was the director of the department concerned not only replied to me directly but also rewrote the feature that day to do what I asked. Mind blown! In the past I've asked them to ignore my questions posted at the weekend but they're so passionate they tend to jump in regardless.With regard to part answered questions I'd tend to leave them unmarked. Bit of a damned either way situation, if you mark it as "no" the poster might be a bit annoyed, if you mark it as "yes" then someone else might not contribute thinking the thread is resolved, and if you do neither the forum nags you to pick one!
Happy CAD-ing,Owen S.Business Systems and Configuration Controller
HWM-Water Ltd3 -
Thanks Owen, that's what I was doing, i will now continue to.
I absolutely agree about Onshape support; I've had more support from Onshape in the past 4 years than the entire 40 years of CAD before that. And the suport was deeds, not just words.3 -
I just stumbled upon, drum roll:
Onshape's Standard Content!
How come a search on nuts and bolts didn't bring that up? There it was lurking in clear view. Perfect. Just insert bolts into an assembly, then re-insert them into a part studio.
0 -
I think we all assumed you were already using standard content and didn't like it!!bill_rayner said:I just stumbled upon, drum roll:Onshape's Standard Content!
How come a search on nuts and bolts didn't bring that up? There it was lurking in clear view. Perfect. Just insert bolts into an assembly, then re-insert them into a part studio.Business Systems and Configuration Controller
HWM-Water Ltd0 -
Hi @bill_rayner can I ask why you need to re-insert them into a part studio?bill_rayner said:I just stumbled upon, drum roll:Onshape's Standard Content!
How come a search on nuts and bolts didn't bring that up? There it was lurking in clear view. Perfect. Just insert bolts into an assembly, then re-insert them into a part studio.Senior Director, Technical Services, EMEA0 -
NeilCooke said:Hi @bill_rayner can I ask why you need to re-insert them into a part studio?Forgive me butting in.Here is my main gripe with standard content only being available in assemblies, at least without workarounds.I'm designing a part and I want decent thread engagement without the fixings bottoming out. So in this case I'd be adjusting the thickness of the bespoke grey/black parts to match off the shelf hardware.
So having Standard Content available in the Assembly is great, but it's too late in the workflow to be useful, unless we start deriving or designing everything in-context.Cheers, Owen S.Business Systems and Configuration Controller
HWM-Water Ltd1 -
The standard "Hole" feature should be good enough for all of that.
It just wont be a boolean subtract + offset, which is what I assume you are doing.
Hole is better in ways because it will also dimension it properly in drawings.0 -
Hi Neil,NeilCooke said:
Hi @bill_rayner can I ask why you need to re-insert them into a part studio?bill_rayner said:I just stumbled upon, drum roll:Onshape's Standard Content!
How come a search on nuts and bolts didn't bring that up? There it was lurking in clear view. Perfect. Just insert bolts into an assembly, then re-insert them into a part studio.
Um, because I can't see how I can do it any other way. But obviously there is; please give me a hint.0 -
What are you trying to do? Same as Owen above? Another option is in-context, but if you can describe your end goal maybe we can suggest a better way.bill_rayner said:Hi Neil,
Um, because I can't see how I can do it any other way. But obviously there is; please give me a hint.Senior Director, Technical Services, EMEA0 -
I want to know what it all looks like so I can avoid clashes. I think the in-context approach is most suitable.
We're really spoilt for choice on how to do things in Onshape, so I find that I get into the habit of using one method to do all things. Revisiting "in-context" makes me realise it should usually be my first choice: I lost a whole sketch-full of relations the other day from choosing an inappropriate workaround. The trick is to assume everything you do is going to be used for final production - no shortcuts! That's really hard when you're on a roll.0
