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
IR for AS/NZS 1100
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/5d8da63844bedebe5cff72b1/w/96a36142be717fc84a504e3f/e/629230d0d394845d93416361
Slicer
There are lots of slicers in the world - but I wanted/needed one that would give me the sliced geometry IN Part Studio so I could continue to manipulate it:https://cad.onshape.com/documents/0a018ea4cf9b04de135c27c3/w/f5780315c7fe9ce8960f21f9/e/87a52ca30fb0ef20fb54540c
Dowel Hole Creator
Doing a lot of laser-cut designs, and needed to save myself from the manual drugery of making good press-fit holes to insert dowels into - so - Here it is:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/08e22e29a1c278b190c5669d/w/d8a3be8ede34550d5b86f4e5/e/0ed0fb01a9d771f6951869eb
X-Slot Creator
For adding "x" cut slots between two orthogonal pieces to join.https://cad.onshape.com/documents/efa816084f901bde743aed35/w/49dc854b40dfd028087a78b0/e/a996e60b83c1984bfd100c09
- "Triad" option creates two additional mate connectors with the same origin but in directions of X and Y axes of first mate connector
- "Construction" option allows to create MC without need to create and select any owner body.
HWM-Water Ltd
Might be just you - PDF displays for me just fine.
Might be time to reboot your equipment (or at least restart Chrome)
Those are great additions! Now, if only we could get the "triad" functionality in Assemblies...
Nice work.
- Set reference checkbox allows to define a vertex or mate connector to locate zero parameter on the path at the closest path point.
- Reverse path option does exactly what you think
- Instance number definition has three options to define instance number of the pattern:
1. By range of Start, End and Count. Start and End can be either lengths or unitless length parameters.
2. By length step and counts in both directions.
3. By array of nonregular lengths or unitless length parameters.
- Skip start instance option allows to omit pattern instance creation if it coincides with seed instance - checked by default.
- Instance orientation options:
1. Local tangetnt - uses transform from initial tangent to local path tangent line.
2. Initial tangent - keeps orientation.
3. Normal and tangent - requares reference faces to keep instance orientation in coordinate system defined by path tangent line and surface normal at the line origin.
But what is the convention/etiquette for making incompatible changes to a custom FS?
Thanks,
- Bob
The changes needed to support this new "action" construct required that I refactor the model in incompatible ways. I put a little bit of thought into preserving the elements of the old model and adding code to automatically evolve data from the old "schema" into the new one. And if there were 100 users, I'd consider it, but with only 5... I just want to do the right thing from a balanced perspective. But this group of experienced scripters say, "Don't worry about it?"
- Bob
.
I've added this script (because it looks useful) but I haven't used it yet personally - so if you update it, and the update breaks older features, it's no problem for me.
Also - if your documentation clearly identifies the changes you've made to the workflow (and it's clear how to end up with the same result with the new version) I'd expect the users of your FS will be able to adapt to the new version.
Keep making it better!
Romeo
//usage
var x = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
var y = [2, 1, 3, 2, 4];
var s = interpolation(x, y);
//now s is function which returns number and can be called with any numeric argument in between xMin and xMax
annotation { "Name" : "Module" } isLength(definition.module, {(millimeter) : [0.01, 2, 500]} as LengthBoundSpec;Enjoying seeing all these new FeatureScripts! FS is a super powerful feature that in my opinion puts Onshape head-and shoulders above the other guys. In a war of attrition, my money's on OnShape with a tool that unlocks internet-scale collabration in many, many ways!
I can't believe its been 5 years since I wrote my first FeatureScript. While I really enjoyed writing some features, I'm frustrated that the only reward can be some atta-boys. If it were possible to make even a tiny amount of money from the hard work it takes to make a really solid feature, I could see myself doing it a lot more. More importantly, I think we'd see a TON more features show up, which would be super-handy for users!
Does anyone else here wish Onshape supported FeatureScript authors with a way to make a little money to fund their efforts? Or am I the only one who thinks that's a good idea? What do you think?
But I think a donation model would be the only viable option. It is too easy to steal the code and make your own copy without the writer knowing if there was a pay wall. Also a majority of users won't want to buy a feature if they can help it and it may piss a lot of users off that featurescripts are purchased individually.
I have dozens of featurescripts in my list, but only really use 3 or 4 on a regular basis. Some I have never used, but linked them up 'just in case'.
So that's why I think donations would be the best route.
Here are all of the FS I have installed, the red ones I use most, the blue I've used half as much. The rest are things I may have used once, or never
If you are the writer of some of the marked ones I would donate.
Ones I use all the time are front and center on the tool bar
>> It is too easy to steal the code and make your own copy without the writer knowing if there was a pay wall.
That's definitely the case currently. That's kind of my point in raising this point: Onshape would have to make some changes to make it feasible.
(Side note: there are ways today to prevent stealing your code , but there are NOT ways to prevent one from granting access to others after gaining access.)
>> Also a majority of users won't want to buy a feature if they can help it and it may piss a lot of users off that featurescripts are purchased individually.
This is another reason Onshape support is essential to make something feasible. I think the most reasonable way to handle the accounting for feature payments is to add them to the users's existing Onshape bill, like the existing app store. Onshape would take a cut, and the author would get a cut. If that was in place, i dont think users would be upset. The existing app store seems to prove that most of the work to do that has been done.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the author for "Surface Text", "Socket Cap Screw", and several other relatively popular FeatureScripts. If i'd been able to get even $0.05 per use of my features, I'd be happy.
Selection Fillet made the blue list 🙌
@dave_cowden you also did Thread Creator, right? awesome feature! (I guess this is exactly the kind of atta-boy you're talking about though)
I don't have a definitive opinion on this whole topic. I, personally, love that features are free, even though I've written a number of my own. I've learned a ton from the code and help of others, so I wouldn't feel like I should solely be compensated for them. Maybe if I got really good at FS and could just lone-wolf it without help, I'd feel differently.
That said, value is value and it's not out of place to want to get something back for all of the value you've created for other people. If paying for a super useful feature were the only way to use it, I'd definitely give it some thought.
I'd also consider asking for donations, as John suggests. That's the most immediate solution. You could even do something similar to what @juliaschatz did here. In her case I think it was more of a curiosity and April fools thing, but the same idea could be applied to messaging your most active users. You could pop something up that says "Hey, you've used this feature 100 times, so it must be useful. If you've gotten value out of it, I'd really appreciate a donation at [URL] so I can keep on making features that level up your modeling."
As a semi-relevant aside, I've also found myself wondering if having so many good unofficial ways to accomplish certain things in Onshape might hamper development of more powerful native Onshape features 🤔. I sure hope not.
WOW thanks for the link to @juliaschatz's work. That's an awesome idea. Worst case , I can look into that trick.
Even more awesome is that completely co-incidently, i'm a huge FRC supporter! I'm programming mentor on FRC team 281, and actually one of the main places i started putting time that was not writing features was when my older son and I went all-in on our FRC team.
FRC ( and FLL and FTC as well) accomplish something incredible. Hidden under a mask of fun, they quietly produce students who already know how to be professional engineers, leaders, and teammates. As a mentor, it's pretty amazing to watch.
(Side note: there are ways today to prevent stealing your code , but there are NOT ways to prevent one from granting access to others after gaining access.)
I agree with you regarding donations: its nice, but it is not probable enough to count on. I do not necessarily agree with you regarding the futility of selling the features. Adding the feature calls together for mine, they total enough that even at $0.05 each i'd be very happy. I think it's reasonable to assume that these features have added at least $0.05 of value when they are used, would you agree?
You're definitely right regarding the best way to make money. I run a professional software team for my day job, and yes, FS pays zero right now, and probably will never pay what you can fetch in more general types of development.
But here's the thing. I love CAD. I was first trained as a mechanical engineer, and later went into IT. I feel like i'm put on this earth to add value in an ecosystem like this, because I know both. Probably, most of the people in this forum do too-- as do you.
I'm not in it for the money: if my objective is to get rich, there are better ways. My objective is to advance the art-- to make CAD more expressive, more capable, and let normal people do really cool stuff. And not just me-- all of the people who have the magical combination of ME/CAD knowledge and programming. It's not about getting rich. It's about creating enough incentive to not go poor doing it, and to bring in a larger sea.
If the Featurescript ecosystem was supported by Onshape as first class, it would absolutely be possible to (a) make Onshape the most powerful CAD package out there, and (b) provide enough value that people could do it full time ( or at least part time! or at least and get enough money to pay for your coffee! )