Відео

Thanks!! I hope this helps your designs - I do follow along with your forum posts.... My Curve and Surface eval tools are here: cad.onshape.com/documents/d675d2ccbcf6336cf8ef52bb/v/ca0fbc4c032a6dc1739420a2/e/853bddb5d9a1fffded23ae80

Sorry for the length of it though - I feel I still rushed over or even skipped some good bits :)

Thanks so much for the comment - it was a great way to start my day here! Let me know what other videos/demos/tutorials you think would be useful!

​@@gregbrown-onshape7555 I'm sure it's something in my approach, but I have run into a lot of problems with loosing nice curvature and continuity between sketching or projecting curves and forming surfaces from them. I've also run into road blocks when trying to form surfaces to use as tangent references when making my main surfaces. Seeing some examples of approaches to build up multiple surfaces into an object that avoid some of these pit falls would be really helpful. For context, I've been working on a handheld macro-pad to use when I'm drawing or working on a tablet. It's something like one half of a game controller. I've finished the electronics and programming, but the modeling has proven complex and I am forcing myself to get better at parametric surfaces by not just hacking something together in Blender or something. Obviously part of the fun is figuring it out and getting better by trying a lot of different ways to tackle the problem, but it would also be nice to finish this project! TLDR: examples of how to approach building up surfaces for something like a controller or mouse would be incredible.

The Publish geometry I am showing here is enabled by a Custom feature that I wrote (especially for this video!) In fact though it uses two current Onshape features that almost exactly mimic Creo's approach. I just packaged them up in my own Custom feature so that the UI was was a bit more obvious. The two features I refer to are: - Composite parts - Derived parts The Publish geometry is really an embellishment of Composite parts (whereby more entities like Mate connectors, individual faces, sketches can be added to the Composite part.) The current native feature does not allow all these entities, so I took matters into my own hands. The Derived parts native feature in Onshape takes care of the "Copy Geometry" part of the workflow and I use that in the video as-is. The good thing with my approach is that since a Composite part is created, it acts like a Part (since it is one) and thus can be version/revision/release managed... This leads to super clean and robust collaboration.

Yes I have a 3DConnexion SpaceMouse and love it, but I don't always take it on the road with me. I do record these videos from all sorts of locations, so you'll see some differences from time to time! The SpaceMouse is the best for sure, and since I work 99% of the time in perspective view it just seems to make the most sense.

Fun fact, I worked on some of the early Pro/E Design Manager demos back, hmm, last century I believe! Time flies. But the workflow is still the best. In my opinion (and as the video tries to get the point across), using Composite parts to be the carrier of references is such a robust way to do things.

Use the Parasolid (x_t) export and then bring it back into a new tab. You can use all teh measurement tools (and modeling tools) on it very easily.

I'll add this to a list of things that people have mentioned to me as follow-ons from this video! It already escalated into nearly an hour (!) and that was without going into details as much as I'd planned. The custom features would be a good deep dive for sure, though I might want to split them into two separate ones. I'll be back from vacation soon enough, and will get back to this asap.

Ah yes you recognize the training I had drummed into me, many moons ago ;) The truth is I love modeling in Onshape more than anything else I've ever used over the (many) years. I feel it is easier to create clean, robust, and updatable models that people who visit later will have more chance in understanding.

I can certainly dig into this by way of a follow up/deep(er) dive. As you can imagine it does take a little bit of planning ahead to do cleanly, but once you get it, it makes sense.

The springs did in fact involve some artistic license.... I'm surprised nobody else has called me out on this yet :) There are two parts to make up each spring, and they are mated such that a rack and pinion relation can control the relative rotation. Not exactly intuitive, I know, but it looks really cool...

I'll think about what I can and can't share here... I've got some other things planned for it in the near term, but you never know.

@@gregbrown-onshape7555 Cool. Thank you very much for the reply. After watching the full video I understand why it may be difficult to share the model. I think a lot about proper setup and implementation of complex assemblies. This is some of the nicest demonstration of it I've seen. Would love to see more on how to use the skeleton method in conjunction with release management in an engineering environment that you hinted at. While I have your ear.. Any chance we can exit a sketch with the enter key like we can when editing a feature anytime soon? 😂 (Thanks for full keyboard shortcuts recently!)

Sorry to hear of your experience - I hope you continue to stay up to date and in touch with Onshape, and consider us in future.

It's a good idea for a focused video and I'll add it to my list. I can describe it pretty quickly though: A 3d fit spline is an interpolated spline of degree 3. In some systems it is called an Edit point spline. Note: when a 3d fit spline consisting of only two points and no adjustments are made to derivatives - it then results in a deg 1 line. For 3 or more points, you'll get a multi-span degree 3... A bridging curve always creates a single span (Bezier) curve of varying degree according to the boundary conditions. For a G3-G3 curve you'll get a degree 7 curve, for G2-G2 you'll get degree 5, etc etc. In terms of use-cases, a 3d fit spline is great for creating cable routes or paths than need to pass through a given set of points. A Bridging curve is for creating high quality profiles, guides, boundaries for (primarily) surfacing features (Boundary surface, Loft etc) where the distribution and number of control points needs to be controlled precisely.

Parametric patterns are extremely powerful once you get your head around the fact you can use then like a for-loop

Great to hear! And sounds like you're in the right place (my channel....) Have a look around for more tips and tricks. Of course this is not the official place for training, for that you should start with learn.onshape.com/

Glad you're finding my videos helpful - I love making these. I'm usually deep inside the planning, design and implementation new features, so it is nice to be able to show them off once in a while.

Yes it is a good start and one that a lot of people have found valuable already. And yes there are many more things on our to-do list. It's always a juggling act to keep advancing on many fronts simultaneously.

It is in the "Analyse-Tools anzeigen" menu (the bottom right corner of a Part Studio graphics area) and in there it is called "Oberflaechen vereinfachen"

Good idea - there are a few options now on sweep profile orientation so it would be good to explain them. I'll get on it.

Glad you liked it!

Ha! The great thing is that we *all* now can have a favorite/preference. I'm all about the single key/left side of the keyboard, but reserve the right to rethink this at any time :)

It's a big one, with many layers to it. Keep exploring!

Are you signed into a Google account?

I'll create a doc and share into the description shortly!

Done: cad.onshape.com/documents/9e209cd0762143bb080de921/w/d5a52dba040542d5dbbbde12/e/cd8b4d332b3f261dd18acef2

Edit curve is truly a powerhouse feature and has a multitude of uses. I'll probably have to do a followup in future with all the new ones I come up with and come across.

There are reasons we did not release with this sort of capability initially, but as always we do intend to make improvements in future releases

I agree!

Fun side story: I recently made a flat pattern for a good portion of a soccer ball. I used lots of rips so the result looked a bit like a 6-armed octopus. I printed it and laboriously cut out along the lines... It fits so nicely over the ball I have sitting on my shelf here!

@gregbrown-onshape7555 that's awesome! I've been inspired to pursue some custom frame bags for one of my bikes.

I agree - I love the Flatten surface feature

Simulating the sound... will be a challenge, depending on your definition and expectations. It is relatively easy to do acoustical analyses to get resonant frequencies and other responses. The boundary conditions are ALWAYS a challenge in whatever sim you do (linear static, nonlinear dynamic, thermal, you name it) since they can profoundly affect the results. In the case of a violin you'll have to wrestle with the effect of the purfling around the edge of the plates. How much they affect the stiffness (and thus, well, everything) will be important to understand. There are lots of great academic papers on this topic: trying to ascertain the true factors making a Strad sound like a Strad. Is it in the dimensions, the wood, the varnish, the plate tuning, bass bar stiffness, soundpost placement, size/shape of the f-holes, etc...? To "answer" your question: yes, you could simulate aspects of it and get some good qualitative directional guidance. But without a LOT of testing and data analysis you'll be working with many unknowns.