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
BOM - Excluding and Flattening
john_hauck
Member Posts: 52 PRO
Greetings.
I appreciate the effort behind the new "Composite Part" feature. I assume this was implemented to some extent in response to discussions like: HOW DO YOU MANAGE PURCHASED ASSEMBLED PARTS (SUCH AS BEARINGS) AS A SINGLE PART FOR BOM PURPOSES. Yet, I wonder if a composite part is really the correct solution for this situation. I understand that a BOM system is way more complex once you get into the details, and all of us appreciate the work OnShape is doing here, and I understand this request does not take all the nuances into consideration (because I clearly don't know all the nuances!).
I do understand that the current OnShape BOM allows us to exclude items from the BOM and it also allows us to view the BOM as Structured (hierarchy) and Flattened. The scenario I am attempting to address can be illustrated when we create multi-level assembly and want to show the top level assembly's BOM flattened. For example, the top-level assembly may have one sub-assembly called "P" for which we want to show all the underlying parts - but the actual "P" should not show up in the flattened list. (This is the default behavior of OnShape BOMs.) Yet, because we are silly people (see referenced discussion), we may have another sub-assembly called "Q" for which we want to show it as a top-level part - but not show the parts that comprise "Q". There is nothing inherently different about how "P" and "Q" were designed. So creating a composite part of "Q" is really pushing the solution for this particular top-level assembly down into "Q". This is a bit tragic as another top-level assembly may see "P" and "Q" the other way around.
This situation could be addressed in many ways. One example could be to allow us to specify a sub-assembly in the BOM as "do not expand" or "treat as single part" something like that.
I appreciate the effort behind the new "Composite Part" feature. I assume this was implemented to some extent in response to discussions like: HOW DO YOU MANAGE PURCHASED ASSEMBLED PARTS (SUCH AS BEARINGS) AS A SINGLE PART FOR BOM PURPOSES. Yet, I wonder if a composite part is really the correct solution for this situation. I understand that a BOM system is way more complex once you get into the details, and all of us appreciate the work OnShape is doing here, and I understand this request does not take all the nuances into consideration (because I clearly don't know all the nuances!).
I do understand that the current OnShape BOM allows us to exclude items from the BOM and it also allows us to view the BOM as Structured (hierarchy) and Flattened. The scenario I am attempting to address can be illustrated when we create multi-level assembly and want to show the top level assembly's BOM flattened. For example, the top-level assembly may have one sub-assembly called "P" for which we want to show all the underlying parts - but the actual "P" should not show up in the flattened list. (This is the default behavior of OnShape BOMs.) Yet, because we are silly people (see referenced discussion), we may have another sub-assembly called "Q" for which we want to show it as a top-level part - but not show the parts that comprise "Q". There is nothing inherently different about how "P" and "Q" were designed. So creating a composite part of "Q" is really pushing the solution for this particular top-level assembly down into "Q". This is a bit tragic as another top-level assembly may see "P" and "Q" the other way around.
This situation could be addressed in many ways. One example could be to allow us to specify a sub-assembly in the BOM as "do not expand" or "treat as single part" something like that.
Tagged:
12
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Website: ovyl.io