# Team CAD build



## RonGinger (Mar 23, 2015)

There has been some mention here of the new CAD software that is web based and full 3D parametric. One of the major features they tout is its ability to share design work. Supposedly multiple people can work on a design and all see the results.

How about we test this by team building some engine. We could use a design that is public, maybe one of Brian Rupnows, where good 2D drawings are available. We could split up the work and each guy just do one or two parts.

Have a look at http://Onshape.com to get your free account. A free account lets you hold 5 personal documents and share an unlimited number of public docs.


----------



## canadianhorsepower (Mar 23, 2015)

RonGinger said:


> There has been some mention here of the new CAD software that is web based and full 3D parametric. One of the major features they tout is its ability to share design work. Supposedly multiple people can work on a design and all see the results.
> 
> How about we test this by team building some engine. We could use a design that is public, maybe one of Brian Rupnows, where good 2D drawings are available. We could split up the work and each guy just do one or two parts.
> 
> Have a look at http://Onshape.com to get your free account. A free account lets you hold 5 personal documents and share an unlimited number of public docs.


 

Onshape, It works fine but I realy like using Makercam, free and spits out your Gcode in a fraction of a second


----------



## kvom (Mar 23, 2015)

How about the MEM Corliss as the target?

I've been playing a bit with OS, so I'll participate if this gets off the ground.  Other than the learning curve for 3D modeling itself, most of the kind of parts most people kake manually are quite easy to do.

I've been trying to model the McOnie engine in SW as a learning exercise since it's reasonably complex.  Since the cylinder and support beams are castings they are the most challenging.


----------



## RonGinger (Mar 23, 2015)

Makercam seems to be a 2D cam program that reads svg files. Thats interesting, but has nothing to do with Onshape- thats a 3D solid modeling program.

I like the idea of the MEM corliss, thats been on my list for a while.


----------



## canadianhorsepower (Mar 23, 2015)

RonGinger said:


> but has nothing to do with Onshape- thats a 3D solid modeling program.
> 
> I like the idea of the MEM corliss, thats been on my list for a while.


 
I know I was just sugesting another free program out there that works awsome

cheers
Luc


----------



## johnmcc69 (Mar 23, 2015)

It will be interesting to see how well this really works. I'm most curious about how well it propogates changes, especially in the assemblies. Such as, if 5 users have an assembly open for review, & I make a change to a part, will the assembly update in "real time" for everyone? What if I screw up my part so bad that I have to recreate it & reassemble it & there were other peoples parts assembled to my bad one? Will it crash because it lost its assembly references & have to have the additional parts reassembled? I've worked with PDM software (PTC "Windchill") across a company network where different designers worked on an assembly & those were just some of the issues I came across. (& that was with just me opening it, nobody else had it open.)

 But...maybe this is that much different & these are non-issues. I'll do a little more reading up on it. 

 From your experiences, whats the learning curve like? (Part modeling, assembly creation, & drawings? I've been using Pro-Engineer for years & am quite comfortable with that. Can someone maybe share some examples they've done?

 John


----------



## kvom (Mar 23, 2015)

The simplest example operations are extrude boss and extrude cut.  In both of these you first create a sketch on a plane using various line drawing tools (straight line, circle, rectangle, trim, extend, etc.).  When the sketch is complete you define the parameters of the extrude.  For a boss extrude the main parameter is the distance.  For a cut extrude you can specify a distance or just cut through all.  The result is a part, to which other ops can be applied (e.g., chamfer, fillet).

If you get an OS userID you can access many shared OS documents, make private copies, and see how the parts were generated as well as make mods yourself.


----------



## jschoenly (Mar 24, 2015)

I would be in on doing some of this CAD work...


----------



## petertha (Mar 24, 2015)

This is kind of an interesting concept. Not just for collaborative CAD design but software usage itself. If I understand correctly, you must be internet connected in order to use it (either for your own personal parts or shared design). There is no 'installed program' on your PC/device. I guess that's why it supports all the platforms, Mac, Win... 

Some FAQ's here.
https://www.onshape.com/faqs

ps - they make loose reference to CAM files, not sure if that's like the typical CAD 'save-as', or confined to importing only.
_*Q: *Does Onshape work with CAM, FEA, rendering, etc?_
_*A: *Yes_

I wonder how this implementation will translate in terms of screen refresh rate & data transfer while designing parts & multi-part assemblies etc. I'm no expert in these matters, but my understanding of newer cloud based apps like Adobe is its basically a glorified licencing / support initiative. The software & user files are still resident on your pc & that's primarily because of speed (& maybe a dash of file security). For example, make a teeny change to a photoshop image image requires complete calc/reload/refresh/save cycle. Not an issue on your fast PC, but one would think this same workflow would start gobbling internet data & physical time pretty quick with any degree of part complexity? I'll be watching with interest how you guys make out, sounds like a worthwhile exercise to test drive.


----------



## kvom (Mar 24, 2015)

The only software needed on the user side is a web browser with webgl enabled.  IE apparently doesn't work.  Chrome seems to be the recommended client.  The apparent speed is more a function of the video card than the processor according to OS.


----------



## canadianhorsepower (Mar 24, 2015)

kvom said:


> The only software needed on the user side is a web browser with webgl enabled. IE apparently doesn't work. Chrome seems to be the recommended client. The apparent speed is more a function of the video card than the processor according to OS.


 
Kvom
I'm using the program with IE11
works fine

Luc


----------



## AussieJimG (Mar 24, 2015)

Thanks for the link Ron, it looks like an interesting program. I have signed up and will have a play with it.
One downside I see to my adopting it is that I can't import my current Geomagic files so I need to retain Geomagic in addition to anything else I use.

As an exercise in collaboration, it could be interesting. I assume you would want to work in imperial measurement so I would not be interested in actually building anything since I only use metric.

I will subscribe to the thread and see where it goes. If I think I can contribute, I will let you know.

Jim


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Mar 24, 2015)

AussieJimG

You can use you Alibre/Geomagic files if you export them as Iges files and then upload them to Onshape. I have done is several times as I test the program.

All we need for this to work is for one person to start a new document or as I prefer to call them a new project. Then those that would like to join in just need to provide to that person there Email address and the person that started the new project just shares with the other folks.
To keep things straight we would build a project tree and folks can take on the parts they want to. 
These separate parts can then be merged back into MAIN.
I have shared one of my projects with a couple of folks that have edit and share privileges.

Dave


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Mar 24, 2015)

Just for fun I went to my Onshape and created a new document/project.
Project is HMEM Team CAD build 

Anyone that would like to join me please PM me your Email address and I will add you to the project.

Dave


----------



## Smithers (Mar 25, 2015)

Hi Ron,

I like your idea, very interested in your idea. Count me in.

Regards, Andrew Smith


----------



## RonGinger (Mar 25, 2015)

Looks like Dave has started a shared project, lets all jump on it. Just need to decide what engine we want to do. I don't think we are doing this to get the engine design- but to learn how the process works. 

Should we pick one design, then allocate its parts as people join the project? Each of us could do our part and we could all see the whole.


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Mar 25, 2015)

As of 0719 PDT we now have 3 on the team build including myself. Lets load this up and see if we can break it for the developers 

Dave


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Mar 25, 2015)

Now we need a good way to talk while we are working on designs. I use Skype with some of my model engineer friends that works well. 

My skype name is dave.sohlstrom if others would like to add me as a contact.

Dave


----------



## jschoenly (Mar 25, 2015)

Thanks for adding me in.  I have the project open and walked away to see it was changed from a cylinder to a few blocks and features when i returned so the parts do update in some form of real time.  

I guess we need a project!  If the project is drawing a know design, the individual parts should probably be listed in a spreadsheet and someone should manager who is assigned to a part for that creation.  Then possibly sub assemblies also with owners?

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Mar 25, 2015)

Jared
You are welcome to add parts to this project. I'm playing with a basic block now. go for it

Dave

Ps where are you located.


----------



## jschoenly (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm playing with a "Flywheel" just messing around.  I'm in Spring City, PA.  My family and I "are" Cabin Fever Expo.

I may not have every posted the best introduction on the forum, but I'm a mechanical engineer and interested in all the fine aspects of the hobby as well as antique engines, tractors, cars, etc.  Having used Solidworks for a good number of years, I'd consider myself pretty fluent in it (not all aspects, but I have some pretty extensive models I've done for hobby and work).  Lots of similarities on OnShape, but I find myself confused be some functions and a big user of the esc key, I don't quite understand the selections and deselecting entirely yet.  There are things I really wish were there from Solidworks I can see already, but it's a pretty good tool so far....


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Mar 25, 2015)

Jared

I spent many years in machining before I retired. Now I build model marine propulsion systems for RC model tugs.

You can build the flywheel in a new tab or you can build it in the part studio.

As I understand the free system You can have 5 active documents/projects ( I like the term Projects better) and as many inactive projects as you need so long as you starage does not exceed 5gb. You just switch projects in and out as needed.

If you use Skype that is a great way for folks that are working on a common project can talk about the project while each is working with OS.

Dave


----------



## AussieJimG (Mar 25, 2015)

RonGinger said:


> Looks like Dave has started a shared project, lets all jump on it. Just need to decide what engine we want to do. I don't think we are doing this to get the engine design- but to learn how the process works.
> 
> Should we pick one design, then allocate its parts as people join the project? Each of us could do our part and we could all see the whole.



Good idea. We need some control structure to make this work.

Jim


----------



## Smithers (Mar 26, 2015)

Hi Dave,

PM sent

Regards, Andrew Smth


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Mar 28, 2015)

Good morning all

I have been working with the Onshape team build project. 

I have discovered that we can add part studios to the project and rename them I added a Crank shaft group, a Cam shaft group and a Timing gear group. 

Every one that has joined the team build can add parts to these part studios if they want to play with it. 

There is at present only one assembly but more sub assemblies can be added say the timing gear group could have gears and a gear case assembly that can be put into the main engine assembly.

For those folks on the thread that have not joined the build just send me a PM with your Email address an I will add you in.

Is there an engine that the group would like to convert 2D drawings to 3D parts and assemblies or design a completely new engine.

Dave


----------



## AussieJimG (Mar 30, 2015)

I have spent a bit of time playing with Onshape and talking to Dave who has helped me with a couple of problems that were my own fault.

I think the program has a lot of potential and the Beta is the place to find the problems and suggest the improvements. I know that Dave has submitted a few suggestions.

For me, the biggest downside at present is the inability to generate dimensioned drawings from which to actually make the parts. I know it is coming and it will make a big difference to the program.

The second one (and a bit of a surprise) is that is doesn't (yet) work on mobile browsers. The  ability to work from desktop, laptop, tablet or mobile phone is a real benefit and one which I would use often.

For personal use, I think I would use Onshape, perhaps in conjunction with Geomagic Design (my current CAD program) because of the ability to work from the different browsers. But I think that the idea of collaborative design is a long way off and needs a lot of work.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Jim


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Mar 30, 2015)

Jim

It has been good to talk to you using Skype and I'm glad I could help.

The mobile App is up and running in the beta test. Here is a link to info on getting the app working on your devices.

Dave

https://cad.onshape.com/help/#mobiledevices.htm


----------



## barnesrickw (Mar 30, 2015)

Dave Sohlstrom said:


> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh I can't wait for that.  I use my iPad almost exclusively and have been looking for a good app for such things.


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Apr 1, 2015)

Looks like this thread is dying on the vine.

Dave


----------



## AussieJimG (Apr 5, 2015)

Yes Dave, despite your hard work, I think it is on hold for the present. Perhaps when it matures it will be more useful.

I know that we can make it useful by making suggestions but I think I will leave that to others for the time being.

Thanks for all  your help.

Jim


----------



## Jasonb (Apr 5, 2015)

Taking the discussions off to Skype does not do the thread a lot of good either as people who may have had an interest will have missed out and drfted away.

J


----------



## mrehmus (Apr 5, 2015)

I have two complete engines drawn in SolidWorks by an engineering class at the
University of Idaho. They are the Ford Model A with gearbox and the Wright brothers second engine, the upright 4-cylinder.
I have the Solidworks files for both.
Either set could be donated to the project with the understanding that I could, perhaps, publish the results in Model Engine Builder magazine.


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Apr 5, 2015)

With the engine parts in solidworks 3D model form they can be imported into OnS but that would defeat the purpose of learning OnS.
If the parts were in 2D drawing form then the people in the build would need to develop 3D part models in OnS Then sub assemblies and assemblies developed from those models. That could be a good learning experience.
How would you go about distributing the parts to people. There is a solidworks viewer that I believe is free.

There are some of us that have seats of SW but I expect that most do not. There are also folks with a seat of Geomagic design that can handle SW part models. There are also some that may have different 3D CAD programs also.

Then there are folk that OnS may be the first 3D CAD program they have used and are just getting started in learning 3D CAD.

Looking forward to what other people think.

Dave


----------



## johnmcc69 (Apr 5, 2015)

Those are some really good points Dave, & that's exactly how I would see potential customers (The larger ones) evaluating this software. In todays world, collaboration across multiple engineering departments & CAD software is quite common. In the end, the final product in the customers hands is the desired result. Seamlessly integrating the process from "Art to part" ("Point A to point B") is huge. In most cases, paper drawings are created as PDF's, & electronic files used in creating manufacturing tooling, (molds, prototypes, 3D printables...) are "Exported" out as IGES, STEP, SLA, Etc., so operating across multiple CAD platforms probably doesn't matter. These scenarios would certainly be a real world test. 

What would the article in the magazine be about? Collaboration? Or just a set of plans created from the software?

John


----------



## aonemarine (Apr 5, 2015)

mrehmus said:


> I have two complete engines drawn in SolidWorks by an engineering class at the
> University of Idaho. They are the Ford Model A with gearbox and the Wright brothers second engine, the upright 4-cylinder.
> I have the Solidworks files for both.
> Either set could be donated to the project with the understanding that I could, perhaps, publish the results in Model Engine Builder magazine.



The model a engine would spark my interest enough to get involved for sure!


----------



## RonGinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Since I started this thread I suppose I ought to get back in it. I had two ideas, first to see how the shared design part works. Just the little comic engine that Dave started has shown how shared design can work.

My second idea was to get some engine for which only 2D drawings exist, and generate a 3D model of that. If each one of a group did just one or two parts in the end we should have a full 3D model. The model A engine sounds a bit ambitious but why not?


----------



## aonemarine (Apr 6, 2015)

RonGinger said:


> Since I started this thread I suppose I ought to get back in it. I had two ideas, first to see how the shared design part works. Just the little comic engine that Dave started has shown how shared design can work.
> 
> My second idea was to get some engine for which only 2D drawings exist, and generate a 3D model of that. If each one of a group did just one or two parts in the end we should have a full 3D model. The model A engine sounds a bit ambitious but why not?



Very ambitious.  Where it could get really interesting is *if* the drawings are full scale and we need to reduce them to model size.  sometimes things dont scale down well, so it would take some forethought and good communication between the modelers.
  I would still like to model the palmer yt1, but only have a few pics to go off of. Sooner of later ill get my hands on one to model


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Apr 6, 2015)

I have a full size set of plans for the engines on the stern wheel tug Portland that I would like to make a model of some day.
What I did was draw the engine parts full size in then Alibre now GeoMagic and scaled them to 1/24 scale. 
Then I dissected the scaled parts to see where I had problems and made adjustments to the full size part.
Problem is at this point in OnS development there is no scaling tool. I have ask for one to be added and I expect they will.

I am thinking that engine parts that are going to be a challenge to model can be taken on by folks that have been working with 3D CAD for some time and then maybe explain to others how they made the part.

Dave


----------



## aonemarine (Apr 6, 2015)

Ive been using alibre for a few years now and just had a look at onshape, seems to have some of the same features. I will have to poke around in it some more and play around a bit and check out the tutorials.


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Apr 6, 2015)

The one big plus with OnS is no maintenance fee. When my current maintenance runs out OnS will save me $300 a year that I can spend on tooling and materials.

Dave


----------



## mrehmus (Apr 6, 2015)

johnmcc69 said:


> snip
> 
> What would the article in the magazine be about? Collaboration? Or just a set of plans created from the software?
> 
> John


The intent would be to have someone build the engine from the resulting drawings as a way to proof the drawing set. Then if they will also take pictures of the process and are willing to describe the process to me on a recording or in print, then I could publish a Build Article for my readers.

I would have no objection to publishing the drawings on this forum as well. The license restrictions for both the magazine and the forum would be for no commercial use of the drawings for offering copies, parts or complete engines without the approval of MEB (MEB being the only legal entity that could enforce the copyright I think).


----------



## mrehmus (Apr 6, 2015)

I talked with David Sohlstrom about how to best go about delivering the 2D drawings of the Model A to the contributing group. These drawings are in 1/3 scale on C- & D-sized paper.
What I will do in the next week or so is shoot the pages with a good digital camera. Then I'll post them to a private group on Google or Yahoo to which those contributing will have access. (I think this will work OK assuming I don't exceed the group file limits.)
Then it will be up to the group to 'get'er done' as OnShape delivers more tools.


----------



## mrehmus (Apr 7, 2015)

I had a major computer crash a few weeks ago and have been looking in all the nooks and crannies for missing files.
A friend, Roger Butzen, built a Ford Flathead V-8 about 15 years ago but lost his CAD files in a computer crash. He had sent them to me but I lost track of them.
Well, I just found them. They are mainly 2D DWG & DXF files with one Alibre file on the block (just the shape, not with bores and bolt holes).
I have his permission to share the files so there is another option for an engine. In terms of popularity (and the potential that someone would build one), the V-8 is more popular but, of course, more difficult to build.
Just say'n.


----------



## kvom (Apr 7, 2015)

My view of this effort as as a teaching exercise for those w/o 3d modeling experience or the ability to afford software.  Building an engine afterwards might be nice but for me irrelevant.  Since the product at present doesn't support drawings as output generating plans isn't possible, an besides any engine we model will already have plans as a starting point.

That's why I suggested the MEM Corliss.  Good plans available and several have been built.

I would treat this as a team build, with all needed parts being listed, and people taking them on via signup.

I started a private document myself with the cylinder block as the test part.  Found that sketch patterns were not yet implemented, so that bolt patterns would be tedious, so stopped there.


----------



## Dave Sohlstrom (Apr 7, 2015)

Do you have a link to the HEM Corliss plans?

Dave


----------



## mrehmus (Apr 7, 2015)

Since there is no consensus on the engine to model, I'll hold off doing anything further with what I have until and if the group wants to work on one I've mentioned.


----------



## barnesrickw (Apr 7, 2015)

Corliss I've run.  Runs on air supplied by a blower.  Flywheel is 10, in diameter.  90 hp engine.  View attachment ImageUploadedByModel Engines1428457517.302038.jpg


----------

