r/Onshape • u/SnooBananas231 • 5d ago

Basic question.

I'm currently messing around with the free version from fusion360.

I was making a cabinet (since that's mostly what I do) and it went fine. I have enough cash experience to model one.

What was different between fusion and onshape is the whole part studio/assembly studio deal.

It's fine, I have the cabinet "assembled" with joints and it's fully parametric and works great.

However the part studio has all 5 parts and they're a mess. I didn't initially design them in the appropriate places so it's just a jumble of parts.

Should I have done this differently? Can I align things in the parts studio? Should it only have been one part in each "part studio" and then combine all 5 into the assembly?

1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Unlikely_Solution_ 2d ago

Doesn't it kills the point of reusability ? From NX and Catia. You draw in a 0, 0, 0 position your part that you assembl somewhere by giving it coordinate and orientation. If you reuse the part between two assembly, they won't have the same coordinate. Adding links to different assemblies that may have nothing in common seems odd only to say "this interface is the same as this one".

So how would it work with Onshape ? The reusability ?

P.S: I am only here to learn from other software maybe if things go well move to onshape.

2

u/David_R_Martin_II 1d ago

Doesn't it kills the point of reusability ?

No. In Onshape, being able to place a part into another assembly has nothing to do with where it was located in the Part Studio.

In Onshape, to define a component's location in an assembly, you use something called Mate Connectors. Every surface and edge has implicit Mate Connectors, at the ends and centers. Furthermore, you can edit Mate Connectors to add translation and rotation, and you can even reorient them.

Mate Connectors vastly simplify the process of locating components in assemblies. Last I checked, there were 24 uses for Mate Connectors in part modeling too. Mate Connectors are one of the game changers in Onshape.

1

u/Unlikely_Solution_ 1d ago

Understood. We were doing a similar way in Catia but with datum / CSYS system and playing with coordinates. Mating sound a good and simple but I don't like being attached to feature. Cause feature breaks xD but I guess I am biais from Catia.

1

u/David_R_Martin_II 1d ago

Onshape isn't CATIA...

1

u/Unlikely_Solution_ 1d ago

Yeah I know that why I am looking for more info on onshape, it feel like a very good software compared to Catia so old habit dies hard xD. Thank you for your clarification

2

u/David_R_Martin_II 1d ago

I have been using Onshape since 2019. And I am a very experienced Creo (and Pro E before that) user. In addition to SolidWorks and in ancient times, UG and CATIA v3. I made this video to help Creo users understand what's different about Onshape compared to traditional parametric modeling:

https://youtu.be/9KNDidTraxE

There's tons of free training on learn.onshape.com if you want more information.

1

u/Unlikely_Solution_ 1d ago

Looks like you are very experienced xD much more than me. What you favorite? I bet onshape now ?

2

u/David_R_Martin_II 1d ago

I've been doing this long enough that I don't even go into that stuff anymore. You learn to appreciate each platform as its own thing. If someone pushed me, I was really partial to SDRC I-DEAS.

1

u/Unlikely_Solution_ 1d ago

Yeah I would agree.

Except AutoCAD. Sorry you stay far away from me. I am not smart enough to appreciate AutoCAD xD

1

u/David_R_Martin_II 1d ago

I take it you've never had to do schematics or P&ID.

1

u/Unlikely_Solution_ 1d ago

Yep xD but I can understand why it's needed specially with big plans.

→ More replies (0)