Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

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.

Rotate and Translate within one Transform Operation

andrew_roleyandrew_roley Member Posts: 11 EDU
It would be nice to reduce operations and features required to position a part; it seems there isn't any interfering activity between the two (only decision would be whether rotation or translation would occur first, with a checkbox to choose being even better).

Comments

  • MBartlett21MBartlett21 Member, OS Professional, Developers Posts: 2,034 EDU
    @andrew_roley

    You can use the transform by mate connectors which allows a lot more freedom than rotate or translate
    mb - draftsman - also FS author: View FeatureScripts
    IR for AS/NZS 1100
  • tony_459tony_459 Member Posts: 206 ✭✭✭
    Transform by mate connectors is your best friend :-D
    Specifying rotation and translation in a single transform would raise the question of which is done first---would the translation be done along the original axes or along the rotated axes?
    This would be a definite tripping point, I think. In other modeling environments, I still struggle which comes first. I always forget. And it's documented, and I always go "ah, that's the order," but it never seems to stick.
    In fact, I couldn't tell you now what that order is. I don't remember. So even though I can specify both in a single transform, to avoid confusion I always specify rotation and translation separately, just to avoid trouble.
    I imagine other people would have trouble remembering, even if it was something they routinely used, and even if it was clearly documented...
    That said, yeah, fewer operations is better... And maybe, even though people would forget, it would make sense for Onshape to let users specify rotation and translation in one go :-D
  • steve_shubinsteve_shubin Member Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2020
    @andrew_roley

    Multi Mate Connector

    You could locate the connector for your part anywhere in 3D space and orient it at any angle, in one FeatureScript

    https://cad.onshape.com/documents/961062e23f34b30aadaa595c/w/353e111348fc9d08f61fd036/e/e803c0f62a2ac145f8e2995a



  • andrew_roleyandrew_roley Member Posts: 11 EDU
    @andrew_roley

    You can use the transform by mate connectors which allows a lot more freedom than rotate or translate
    tony_459 said:
    Transform by mate connectors is your best friend :-D
    Thanks for the suggestion; In the case where the desired endpoint of the object was one planar/smart mate point to another, this would work quite well. For any other occurrence, there would be many more clicks and at least two features to get the mate connector where you wanted on each end and finally do the transform.
    tony_459 said:
    Specifying rotation and translation in a single transform would raise the question of which is done first---would the translation be done along the original axes or along the rotated axes?
    This would be a definite tripping point, I think. In other modeling environments, I still struggle which comes first. I always forget. And it's documented, and I always go "ah, that's the order," but it never seems to stick.
    In fact, I couldn't tell you now what that order is. I don't remember. So even though I can specify both in a single transform, to avoid confusion I always specify rotation and translation separately, just to avoid trouble.
    I imagine other people would have trouble remembering, even if it was something they routinely used, and even if it was clearly documented...
    I agree the order of operations could slow down the feature flow; hence why I suggested the check box option to switch between the two. That way you don't have to go searching docs or have to struggle with it doing the opposite of what you wanted. Worst case, you click the check box to change to the desired operation order.
    @andrew_roley

    Multi Mate Connector

    You could locate the connector for your part anywhere in 3D space and orient it at any angle, in one FeatureScript

    https://cad.onshape.com/documents/961062e23f34b30aadaa595c/w/353e111348fc9d08f61fd036/e/e803c0f62a2ac145f8e2995a



    Thanks for sharing! This essentially turns the manual process of mate connector positioning into a much easier flow, which can then make transform by mate connectors much easier. 

    It would still be great if the Transform feature incorporated this itself, as except for ideal scenarios, you would still be having to go through multiple features and many clicks.
  • romeograhamromeograham Member Posts: 656 PRO
    You can create Mate Connectors on-the-fly inside the Transform operation:

    Here, the "from" MC and the "to" MC were created on the fly. You can also edit each MC after they are created by clicking the little MC icon in the selection box:
    You have a lot of control with the position of the "to" (and "from") MC inside this tool.


  • billy2billy2 Member, OS Professional, Mentor, Developers, User Group Leader Posts: 2,014 PRO
    @andrew_troup do what @romeograham suggests to perform one transformation.

    rotations and translations don't get along and can't be mixed. Rotations are procedural meaning the order matters. Rotx, Roty & Rotz does not equal Rotz, Roty & Rotx. Translations don't matter and can be performed in any order.

    I think of it like a party of translations and it only takes one rot to ruin the party. What comes before and after the rot really matters.




  • steve_shubinsteve_shubin Member Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭✭
    @andrew_roley

    What @romeograham says is true. It’s easy to create connector mates on the fly in the desktop version of Onshape

    But if you still have the desire to limit the amount of features in a feature list, then watch this GIF




  • andrew_roleyandrew_roley Member Posts: 11 EDU
    You can also edit each MC after they are created by clicking the little MC icon in the selection box:
    This feature 


    This tip is huge! I had no idea you could edit the mate connectors inside the transform (and I'm guessing other features) workflow. This should be in the documentation!

    billy2 said:
    @andrew_troup do what @romeograham suggests to perform one transformation.

    rotations and translations don't get along and can't be mixed. Rotations are procedural meaning the order matters. Rotx, Roty & Rotz does not equal Rotz, Roty & Rotx. Translations don't matter and can be performed in any order.

    I think of it like a party of translations and it only takes one rot to ruin the party. What comes before and after the rot really matters.




    I'm aware of the procedural order of rotating in euler angles. I don't quite agree that rotations and translations "can't be mixed". Please refer to the homogeneous transformation matrix. Here is a helpful video describing it.
    But if you still have the desire to limit the amount of features in a feature list, then watch this GIF




    I do appreciate the work that went into multi-mate connector; it is a very powerful tool. However, just for this one mate, it would take about 19 clicks and 10 keystrokes give or take, to accomplish, plus the clicks and keystrokes for the actual transform and other mate connector.

    The desire isn't just low feature count, although that has benefits in itself for keeping track of things. What I'm requesting is essentially to make the freeform translate tool that exists in assemblies work in part studios as well. We can transform parts wherever we want them without a bunch of tedious workarounds and feature script implementation in assemblies. Why not part studios? 

    Yes, the operations become complex when adding multiple changes on top of one another, but I think the user should be given the power to decide between a reproducible list of # features of low complexity and high involvement vs a single feature with high complexity and low involvement.


Sign In or Register to comment.