Mating in Onshape?

[MJuric]

Any good tutorials on this?

Looks to me like Onshape is doing something similar to F360 and either I'm doing it wrong or it's just frustrating.

You get all the "Mate symbols" that pop up at various mating points. You can't, again unless I'm doing something wrong, pick just a face to mate.

I had issues with doing "Face" mates in F360 when I would pick a "Corner" even though it was also the face so I did not try this with Onshape. So what I had to do is to find the "Center" of the face, which is a bit of a pain if you're working in an area where the center of the face is not in the view. Zoom out, zoom in on the center, zoom out, zoom in on the center of the other face.

Also it move the parts around worse than SW. It actually breaks other mates every time you add a new mate until you "Solve" and then it moves everything back to where it needs to be.

That being said I messed with configurations last night and I actually prefer Onshapes approach over both IV and SW. It allows you to make configs and change all the options yuo want to change at the same time. It's like the SW configuration table but that is the default.....and unlike SW it doesn't take 3 and a half hours to apply the changes.

[kawuser]

This may or may not help. https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/mate.htm
https://learn.onshape.com/courses/mating-basics

[MJuric]

This may or may not help. https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/mate.htm
https://learn.onshape.com/courses/mating-basics

I hadn't done the tutorial on mates but so far they've been pretty basic and don't go into to much detail. I would guess that they have some additional advantages in the way they are being used of typical mates because it's the second place I've seen software designed with similar approach.

I'll look into these when I get a chance.

[MJuric]

Any idea on how to mate parts to the origins? I'm still figuring mates out but so far Onshape flips parts around even worse than SW. A little maddening especially since I can't figure out how to place a part to start with and lock it down to the origin planes.

[mattpeneguy]

Any idea on how to mate parts to the origins? I'm still figuring mates out but so far Onshape flips parts around even worse than SW. A little maddening especially since I can't figure out how to place a part to start with and lock it down to the origin planes.

Hey Matt,
This was apparently a big consideration in the development of Onshape. Here's a thread about it from 7 years ago:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/29/master-model

Just to be clear, some words are being thrown around, but the concept of being able to drive parts in an assembly from a single part at the top of the FT, what I call the SSP method, was considered important from the beginning. So, there's got to be a good solid way to mate parts in an ASM to the origin.
Any thoughts, @mbiasotti? I see you were the one who originally inquired (and thanks for that!).

[MJuric]

Any idea on how to mate parts to the origins? I'm still figuring mates out but so far Onshape flips parts around even worse than SW. A little maddening especially since I can't figure out how to place a part to start with and lock it down to the origin planes.

Hey Matt,
This was apparently a big consideration in the development of Onshape. Here's a thread about it from 7 years ago:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/29/master-model

Just to be clear, some words are being thrown around, but the concept of being able to drive parts in an assembly from a single part at the top of the FT, what I call the SSP method, was considered important from the beginning. So, there's got to be a good solid way to mate parts in an ASM to the origin.
Any thoughts, @mbiasotti? I see you were the one who originally inquired (and thanks for that!).

Like when learning anything new you typical start out in a direction you know and then figure out that that may not be the best approach in the new system. This, for me, means I'm still approaching the design from a SW/IV mindset and my guess is that that is not the best approach with Onshape...but until I figure the better approach, that's what I do.

I suspect that the entire idea of "Part studio" is different that what I'm thinking. Right now I'm doing each part is a new part studio and that doesn't seem like that was what is intended with Onshape...but it's working so that's what I'm doing

[mattpeneguy]

Any idea on how to mate parts to the origins? I'm still figuring mates out but so far Onshape flips parts around even worse than SW. A little maddening especially since I can't figure out how to place a part to start with and lock it down to the origin planes.

Hey Matt,
This was apparently a big consideration in the development of Onshape. Here's a thread about it from 7 years ago:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/29/master-model

Just to be clear, some words are being thrown around, but the concept of being able to drive parts in an assembly from a single part at the top of the FT, what I call the SSP method, was considered important from the beginning. So, there's got to be a good solid way to mate parts in an ASM to the origin.
Any thoughts, @mbiasotti? I see you were the one who originally inquired (and thanks for that!).

Like when learning anything new you typical start out in a direction you know and then figure out that that may not be the best approach in the new system. This, for me, means I'm still approaching the design from a SW/IV mindset and my guess is that that is not the best approach with Onshape...but until I figure the better approach, that's what I do.

I suspect that the entire idea of "Part studio" is different that what I'm thinking. Right now I'm doing each part is a new part studio and that doesn't seem like that was what is intended with Onshape...but it's working so that's what I'm doing

I found someone posted a link to something that was supposed to made in a Master Model. I wonder if copying it and analyzing what they did wouldn't help see some options. I'm still not certain how to "roll" things back and check it out. Here's a link:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/87b92 ... b66858b5ff

[DennisD]

Any idea on how to mate parts to the origins? I'm still figuring mates out but so far Onshape flips parts around even worse than SW. A little maddening especially since I can't figure out how to place a part to start with and lock it down to the origin planes.

Hey Matt,
This was apparently a big consideration in the development of Onshape. Here's a thread about it from 7 years ago:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/29/master-model

Just to be clear, some words are being thrown around, but the concept of being able to drive parts in an assembly from a single part at the top of the FT, what I call the SSP method, was considered important from the beginning. So, there's got to be a good solid way to mate parts in an ASM to the origin.
Any thoughts, @mbiasotti? I see you were the one who originally inquired (and thanks for that!).

Like when learning anything new you typical start out in a direction you know and then figure out that that may not be the best approach in the new system. This, for me, means I'm still approaching the design from a SW/IV mindset and my guess is that that is not the best approach with Onshape...but until I figure the better approach, that's what I do.

I suspect that the entire idea of "Part studio" is different that what I'm thinking. Right now I'm doing each part is a new part studio and that doesn't seem like that was what is intended with Onshape...but it's working so that's what I'm doing

Knowing how to model in one CAD system is a hindrance in learning a different one because of the things we have already learned and expect. Going through the new CAD's tutorials from their beginning has been a huge help for me in getting past my own "biases". (Yes, I just admitted I am biased.) I just started going through the Onshape learning exercises last Friday, but am starting at the very beginning for this very reason. I am very interested in not only learning how to use Onshape well, but in how it is different. I want to exploit those differences and leverage this new knowledge with my old.

[MJuric]

Hey Matt,
This was apparently a big consideration in the development of Onshape. Here's a thread about it from 7 years ago:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/29/master-model

Just to be clear, some words are being thrown around, but the concept of being able to drive parts in an assembly from a single part at the top of the FT, what I call the SSP method, was considered important from the beginning. So, there's got to be a good solid way to mate parts in an ASM to the origin.
Any thoughts, @mbiasotti? I see you were the one who originally inquired (and thanks for that!).

Like when learning anything new you typical start out in a direction you know and then figure out that that may not be the best approach in the new system. This, for me, means I'm still approaching the design from a SW/IV mindset and my guess is that that is not the best approach with Onshape...but until I figure the better approach, that's what I do.

I suspect that the entire idea of "Part studio" is different that what I'm thinking. Right now I'm doing each part is a new part studio and that doesn't seem like that was what is intended with Onshape...but it's working so that's what I'm doing

Knowing how to model in one CAD system is a hindrance in learning a different one because of the things we have already learned and expect. Going through the new CAD's tutorials from their beginning has been a huge help for me in getting past my own "biases". (Yes, I just admitted I am biased.) I just started going through the Onshape learning exercises last Friday, but am starting at the very beginning for this very reason. I am very interested in not only learning how to use Onshape well, but in how it is different. I want to exploit those differences and leverage this new knowledge with my old.

I'm not quite sure why but my brain works backwards. If I watch the tutorials and then try to do something I will retain next to nothing from the videos. If I try to do something and then search out the solutions to the problems I'm running into I have much better luck learning and retaining.

That's why I like to sit down and just start trying things and then go and look at the tutorials, etc. My early models are always a disaster and generally completely wrong until I run into enough problems that I learn to do it correctly.

[mattpeneguy]

Hey Matt,
This was apparently a big consideration in the development of Onshape. Here's a thread about it from 7 years ago:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/29/master-model

Just to be clear, some words are being thrown around, but the concept of being able to drive parts in an assembly from a single part at the top of the FT, what I call the SSP method, was considered important from the beginning. So, there's got to be a good solid way to mate parts in an ASM to the origin.
Any thoughts, @mbiasotti? I see you were the one who originally inquired (and thanks for that!).

Like when learning anything new you typical start out in a direction you know and then figure out that that may not be the best approach in the new system. This, for me, means I'm still approaching the design from a SW/IV mindset and my guess is that that is not the best approach with Onshape...but until I figure the better approach, that's what I do.

I suspect that the entire idea of "Part studio" is different that what I'm thinking. Right now I'm doing each part is a new part studio and that doesn't seem like that was what is intended with Onshape...but it's working so that's what I'm doing

Knowing how to model in one CAD system is a hindrance in learning a different one because of the things we have already learned and expect. Going through the new CAD's tutorials from their beginning has been a huge help for me in getting past my own "biases". (Yes, I just admitted I am biased.) I just started going through the Onshape learning exercises last Friday, but am starting at the very beginning for this very reason. I am very interested in not only learning how to use Onshape well, but in how it is different. I want to exploit those differences and leverage this new knowledge with my old.

Good point @DennisD. Also, can't hurt to sign up here https://www.onshape.com/en/resource-cen ... asy-042121 for a webinar next Wednesday, if you can fit it in your schedule.

[DennisD]

Like when learning anything new you typical start out in a direction you know and then figure out that that may not be the best approach in the new system. This, for me, means I'm still approaching the design from a SW/IV mindset and my guess is that that is not the best approach with Onshape...but until I figure the better approach, that's what I do.

I suspect that the entire idea of "Part studio" is different that what I'm thinking. Right now I'm doing each part is a new part studio and that doesn't seem like that was what is intended with Onshape...but it's working so that's what I'm doing

Knowing how to model in one CAD system is a hindrance in learning a different one because of the things we have already learned and expect. Going through the new CAD's tutorials from their beginning has been a huge help for me in getting past my own "biases". (Yes, I just admitted I am biased.) I just started going through the Onshape learning exercises last Friday, but am starting at the very beginning for this very reason. I am very interested in not only learning how to use Onshape well, but in how it is different. I want to exploit those differences and leverage this new knowledge with my old.

I'm not quite sure why but my brain works backwards. If I watch the tutorials and then try to do something I will retain next to nothing from the videos. If I try to do something and then search out the solutions to the problems I'm running into I have much better luck learning and retaining.

That's why I like to sit down and just start trying things and then go and look at the tutorials, etc. My early models are always a disaster and generally completely wrong until I run into enough problems that I learn to do it correctly.

I get it. I did that too when I first got my Onshape account. However, I quickly found there were a LOT of things that were different. I decided to learn how Onshape did the stuff so I wouldn't stub my toe so much, but what I am finding is that there are a lot of things that are fundamentally different and I am really liking them! I see the differences between SWX and Onshape as being more than the differences between SWX/Creo/Fusion360, etc. I guess that is the benefit of developing a new CAD system after learning from how all the others did their stuff, exploiting the best of the best, and taking advantage of a clean slate. Competition is good for the consumer!