Видео

Glad you found it useful! Make sure check parts 2 and 3 if you haven't already as it does build on this video.

Hi, glad you found this helpful! Check the first "sheet metal" feature, near the bottom there is an expandable setting for relief that you need to set it here. Hole tool and variables are obviously "optional"; not really useful for just a "challenge" like this but good best practice. The variable does come in handy when working on more complex parts. The hole tool adds holes to the "hole table" (useful for drawings) and also makes easy to change the hole type later (to add a countersink, or change to a tapped hole) or just to help get the correct size for what you want to use it for (i.e. screw size, etc...)

​@@airwick5083Thank you for your response. I agree that those are excellent reasons to utilize those features, and I will make an effort to practice using them from now on.

One thing I should note about this videos is that you can now edit the individual mate connectors during the mate process so it's easier/quicker to do some of the examples (i.e. you don't have to accept the mate in the "wrong" state just to be able to expand it and modify the mate connector after the fact). I should do an updated video! Performance is a topic in itself but here are a quick couple of things I can think off: - Avoid limits if possible: for example if you have a hinge model, don't put the limit in the hinge, instead mate the door using a reference mate connector (with a limit) and use for example a parallel mate for the moving part of the hinge to follow the door. - Also avoid over-constrainging things if possible: if you have a several parts with a "chain" of revolutes, try setting some to "cylindrical" instead to avoid having multiple constraining the Z direction. - If you have "sets" of things that move together (for example two parallel mechanisms), see if you can do a linear pattern instead of having them both be fully mated)

Knowing how to make a swept thread on a helix is a useful skill (for example if you need to create a thread for a soft plastic part than needs to be way oversized, etc...)

Very impressive! I've been unable to obtain the correct mass for model #1 in SWX using the dimensions in the drawings. I've seen Airwick here replace the 80mm dimension with a 78.5mm (30sec mark) and obtain the correct mass. Is that a drawing error?

awww crap I didnt notice that he fudged the dimension.@@FullyDefined-Design No - the first print has a dimension from the edge of the model to the location of the holes -33mm, and a dimension from the location of the holes to the location of the upper c bore - 80mm. Using these 2 dimensions you will be able to create the accurate model. in other words - the 12 mm dia holes are NOT centered on the lower plate.

@@FullyDefined-Design upon further review I see that YES - he dimensioned at 78.5 from the CENTER of that plate, but the HOLES are still dimensioned at 33mm, which means his model is ACCURATE - because the holes are still 80mm horizantal distance from the C bore in the upper section. So his video submission is valid.

@@TooTallTobygot it! I can see my own error's now - good fun

@@TooTallToby Does it consider cheating as he already has value preset in many windows such as the draft tool and fillet tool? And custom countersink value in the hole tool? Because I saw the rule says no pre-created geometric data is allowed, but I did not see him enter the value in the video (sorry if I missed it). Those values are a part of the geometric data to get the correct mass but were entered into the CAD software before the timer started. Thank you in advance for your clarification!

Glad you found it useful! I have found Onshape can be a bit deceptive because of minimalist interface, there's a lot more depth to it than it looks like at first glance...

I'm basically cheating by using Onshape! I would be slower using SolidWorks even though I've used for 20+years... Onshape is basically always in "contour select" mode, and sketches don't get "absorbed", I just wish there was an option for turning off the automatic hiding after you create the first feature, that would help for speed modelling!

Thanks, I'm planning a "part 2" to expand a bit on some possible workflows to add details...

Thanks, I'll have more coming (hopefully soon-ish...)

It's not necessarily super intuitive but not too bad once you get the hang of it... Incrementing counters is still something that happens all the time in programming...

One of the other examples I was working on (coming soon) is to setup the "counter" so it goes from 0 to 1 over the whole pattern and use it as a parameter in an equation, for example to have the diameters follow a sine wave... There are a also a couple of FS that can create parametric curves/surfaces outside of a pattern consideration.

Thanks for the feedback, glad you found it helpful!

Glad you enjoyed it!

I still learn something new every day, there's are a lot of depth to 3D CAD!

@@airwick5083 Any chance you would want to do the Coat Hanger from Monday? I managed to get it about right but my feature list looks like the index for NY phone book. Thanks again

@@RichPenn you can find my "live" solve by looking for "TTT-23-T-79-Coat Hanger 2 - Live", but it's obviously not optimal... I ended up with an overly complicated layout sketch and a bunch of different sweeps. Working around that sketch was messy with the different sections and offsets moving around a lot when adding dimensions... If I was going to do it "properly" I would do the main "shape" is a single sweep then add the "hook" sections (using a separate sketch) and cut away from the base shape. Either that or just the frame tool with an 8mm round profile, drawing the centerline of the main shape directly might not be that bad (it's just a couple of radii that are dimensioned on the "wrong" side)...

Thanks for the comment, I use "key-n-Stroke" for the keyboard and mouse display (the keyboard input is a bit "basic" but I really like the mouse visualization). As far as how long it takes to learn, I think it depends where you are coming from. I was a long time user of SolidWorks so most things were very familiar and it only took a couple of weeks to get "productive", and I would say about 6 months to really understand the subtleties, but I still learn new things so it's never "done"! Onshape is a full parametric CAD program (with some good direct-editing tools) so if you are used to mesh modeling it's a very different workflow (and intended for different use cases...). I do find the self paced course in the learning center do a good job and I would start with the "CAD basics" learning pathway if you are not familiar with parametric CAD. As far as speed is concerned, Onshape really doesn't need much throughput (it only really matters when first loading a large model), and I have heard you don't get much benefit past 10-15Mbit/s. However low latency is important. There is a "system check" tool under the "?" menu as well as some performance analysis tools within documents that can help troubleshoot things. My personal experience is that Onshape is consistently the most responsive cloud software (i.e. running in a browser) I've ever used.

@@airwick5083thanks very much for the information. I change my mind very much as the design progress, I'm always looking to delete parts or experimenting with new concepts. Maybe best to keep with dynamic , non-history based CAD ( not Plasticity) but I can see that you develop ideas fairly fast. Have you done anything with assembly top down, in context but not fully parametric design arrangements ? The production of a model from an existing drawing is only OK to understand the modelling commands, other than that, most presentations are a bit boring.

@@TAH1712 Not 100% sure what you mean by "not fully parametric", when you work in SW or Onshape, everything is "parametric" by definition. That said at the concept stage you often do some "sloppy" modelling (i.e. make things an arbitrary dimension or make things the same size by entering the same dimension instead of using variable etc...), maybe that's what you meant. A lot also depends on the manufacturing process, a "standalone" part for additive manufacturing (for example a 3D printed vase) isn't going to benefit from parametric modelling features like a complex machine with interdependent moving parts will... When it comes to designing something, I always start by doodling things on paper until I find something worth "trying" in CAD. A pure mesh modeler might be useful intermediate, or something like Spaceclaim. For me the benefits of doing conceptual work in a parametric modeler is that it lets you (even forces you) to identify design constraints and "bake them into" the design through the modelling. Modelling a part from a drawing is mostly just a way to demonstrate how to use the tool (and interpret drawings), but a lot of the process is still applicable when you just have a mental image of what you are trying to draw. I don't know if you have looked at these but my videos on the sheet metal box and hinge dive a bit more into the parametric process so you might find them more interesting.

@@airwick5083 I use a version of Spaceclaim mostly because my CAD sketching is nearly as fast as my pencil and paper sketching and the versatility to change the design is unlimited. However, I do feel at time I'm missing out on some capability. I'll look at the your video on the sheet metal box with hinge. Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it.

Hi, Onshape currently doesn't support "non-normal" features (i.e. anything that would create a face that isn't perpendicular to the faces of the metal) in active sheet metal parts. I expect this capability to be added soon but in the meantime if you need a chamfer you have to first add a "finish sheet metal" feature and then you cand add it. Just be aware that the chamfer will not be shown in the flat pattern view.

Yeah sometimes things don't work out quite right the first time! For the table, just do a search for "TooTallToby Table" in public docs and the document should pop up, then all you have to do is open it and click on the "Custom tables" icon at the top and then add the "TTT Part Mass" table by clicking on it. It will then be available in your "Custom tables" flyout on the right of any document. Note that for "real work" I use normal material libraries...

@@airwick5083 - Superstar, working perfectly - thanks :)

Glad that was helpful!

I don't use lofts very often but I'll see if I can come up with a good example!

Glad you are finding it helpful!👍

The shell is a bit a of a challenge as there are a lot of faces to select if you don't use a box selection... The alternative is to add the holes afterwards, that helps quite a bit.

You're welcome, even though some of it isn't correct anymore as Onshape just added the "hold line" option for the flange on Friday, so you can now create flanges the way you wanted to...

i saw that - however, even with a hold line you still end up with relief - so there still needs to be some magic dimensioning @@airwick5083

It's a speed run, there's no commentary... Play your own music if you can't cope with silence, or if you don't like just don't watch?

Yes, I find in Onshape you can do a lot working with "solids" before creating a sheet metal feature. While it requires some adjustment as it can be slightly less intuitive I've grown to really like the workflow and it produces very robust models.

Good to hear, I have at least one more "workflow" I want to go over related to this, I'll try to post that in the next few days.

Hi, glad that helped. I go over some of the mate alignment in the "Mate Offsets" video. Basically it will snap to the "nearest" orientation so it can help to spin your part to be approximately in the right orientation, but you can use the "flip" and "reorient" functions at the bottom of the mate dialogue (keyboard shortcuts "a" and "q") to quickly fix it if it's not pointing the right way.

Yes something like that should work fine, just make sure it doesn't cause a mis-alignment in the assembly but if you use the end of the pin to mate the second leaf it shouldn't affect anything. If you want the gap to be even you also need to extend the top of the rectangle in Sketch2 by 1/2 of the gap and use "#Length/(#Knuckles_per_leaf*2)+gap/2"

Glad to hear you find it helpful!

Thanks! Hope that was helpful!

You are welcome, I'm glad you are finding it useful!

Thanks for the feedback, I'm trying to include other "random tips" as I make tutorials as I know I have learned a lot from seeing other user's techniques and workflows.

Glad that helped, make sure to check out "method 3" as I go over a completely different approach that I personally find faster

Hi, I was planning on doing a tutorial on that part. Haven't recorded it yet but I will try to do that soon!

Glad that helped! I wish the documentation went over this as I am sure there are a lot of people out there puzzled by the apparent randomness! I got tired of it one day and spent an hour methodically looking at it to figure out what was going on!

I'm assuming you mean sheet metal... I think I will make some sheet metal tutorials at some point...

Not sure what you mean by that... Can you elaborate?

Glad you found something useful!

Glad you enjoyed! Planning the content of the next one...