All Pictures

OnShape CAD is Free for Hobby Makers:

Is it as good as Fusion 360?

I am attached to Fusion 360, it is very hard to let it go. But avoiding its high cost is powerful motivation! OnShape is amazing. There is nothing to install on my PC, it runs in a browser window (some people say you cannot use it offline, but I am almost never offline). My expectations of how it should function are a product of experience with Fusion 360, it is a pleasant surprise that they are generally being met. There seems little danger of encountering limitations in OnShape given the basic requirements of making molds for slip casting. Recent experience with the complexity and slowness of Solidworks for Makers, which is total overkill for what I need, really makes OnShape look good.

My OnShape drawings are stored in my cloud account and are public. That sounded bad a first, but it also means that they are shareable with others (another person, whom I choose, can actually work on a drawing at the same time as me). The full OnShape is working in Firefox on my 2014 Mac Mini Ubuntu Linux machine. This is beyond exciting to me, traditional CAD has always required expensive hardware that is far beyond what a hobbyist could afford (of course, OnShape will also work in Safari on Mac and Chrome on Windows). A real bonus: I can edit drawings on iPad in what appears to be full power mode (although a mouse and keyboard are needed for serious work). This is the Google Docs of CAD!

Besides the above, here are some of the features and advantages I am seeing:
-It opens and saves many professional CAD file types (a major drawback of the restrictions in SolidWorks for Makers).
-It is really fast, login is quick and a drawing can be open in seconds, this is way better than xDesign for Makers (from Solidworks).
-Documents are always saved, you close one by simply clicking the home icon on the upper left.
-The timeline (called the "Feature Tree") can be reordered, turned back and has folders like Fusion 360.
-To 3D print a body just select it, right-click and choose to export it in 3MF or STL format, it goes into the downloads folder where it can be opened by my slicer (e.g. Prusa Slicer or Simplify 3D).
-All tools are in one long, monochrome ribbon at the top; icons look alike until you learn them. But I prefer this over the large space-hogging tool icons spread across menus and work spaces in Fusion 360.
-Like Fusion 360, sketching constraints are inferred as sketches are created and applying them works in a similar fashion (although I am still looking for the equivalent of the co-linear one). Their tiny symbols display in groups and associate to the point or line by a light grey line.
-Constraints and dimensions are movable so drawings can be uncluttered for printing.
-Section analysis is in the "Camera and Render Options" popup under the view cube.
-The spline sketching tool seems to work better.
-Parameters, called variables, are more in your face, they are even shown in the timeline.
-Panning and rotating work differently and the viewcube does not rotate the object like Fusion 360. But the iPad version of OnShape beats Fusion easily in this respect.

The secret weapon of learning OnShape, if you already know Fusion 360, is an AI chatbot. Just ask any question about how to do something. Just start by creating a sketch and extruding or revolving it. One helpful migration approach is to print the sketch(es) of a Fusion 360 drawing (with constraints and dimensions) and work from that to create the equivalent in OnShape. Rationalize as you do it and you will end up with a simpler timeline and thus a better design.

Related Pictures

3D mechanical design software 2025:

Which is the best for mold making in ceramics?

This picture has its own page with more detail, click here to see it.

CAD software and 3D printing are a potential revolution in vessel mold-making for ceramics (3D modelling is another topic). But there are two big problems: There is no way a potter, hobbyist or even small manufacturer can afford the typical software cost. While it is true most have free or low-cost trial or hobby versions, the strings attached are deal breakers. The second problem is the complexity of learning - that can be a bigger obstacle than cost.

Until the recent price increase, Fusion 360 seemed to be exactly what was needed. A great way to on-board the CAD world, using the free version and its great learning resources and best-in-class user interface. It is new and modern, a YouTube star. It is fully parametric supporting constraints and a timeline. True, it can choke on more complex drawings on consumer computers, but we don’t need to do those. But, for commercial use, it costs $680/yr. But that is cheap compared to some others! Upon discovery of the capability, the cost might be doable for you.

Here are the ones you likely cannot afford (and maybe don't want):
-OnShape runs in your browser, in our testing it looks really good. Free-version drawings are public (but no other restrictions). Going private costs $1500/yr!
-Rhino is usable for CAD but is polygonal and targeted at modelling. It is not fully parametric and does not have a traditional timeline (however Rhino+Grasshopper is life-changing for geeks, both for CAD and modelling). $1000 to buy but upgrading is $500+.
-Solidworks is a long-time proven product, it is fully parametric with editable history. Runs on Windows only (or the xDesign product runs in a browser like OnShape). It is low cost for hobby use (but the restriction of not being able to save or open the commercial SolidWorks file format is a potential deal-breaker for hobbyists). For commercial use: $2600/yr in 2025.

Some upcoming possibilities:
-FreeCAD is becoming more viable. It is parametric, has constraints and exports and imports popular formats (but with lots of issues). Its model tree is equivalent to the Fusion 360 timeline, but more clunky and depends on careful setting of constraints. The learning curve right now puts it out of practical reach of most. But a capital injection, like Blender got, is coming.
-Shapr 3D costs $299/yr, also works on iPad (which Fusion 360 does not), and uses the Parasolid engine like OnShape and SolidWorks. But it seems to be targeted at being intuitive for conceptual modeling and quick prototyping for drawings that are finalized in other products (limited support for accurate feature placement, constraints, parametrics and boolean operations).

3D Printed Pour Spout Forms a Rounded Lip

Slipcasting mold and spout made using OnShape

This picture has its own page with more detail, click here to see it.

This 3D-printed PLA pour spout potentially increases the utility of this one-piece plaster mold. As can be seen on the upper section analysis, the spout is designed to form the lip of this small Medalta Potteries bowl (and provide a guide for cutting its inside edge). It has lugs that extend outward to enable holding it down using rubber bands. I intend that it will be cleanly removable after the piece begins to pull away from the mold, leaving a high-quality lip that only needs a little trimming. This spout also permits precise monitoring of when to pour out the slip and it prevents most of the mess made using traditional molds having a spare.

This is the first piece I have made wholly using OnShape CAD. Experience with Fusion 360 gives me expectations of how this should work and those expectations are generally being met. Cost is no longer an obstacle to adopting professional 3D CAD for mold making. I am using OnShape on my 2014 Mac Mini running Ubuntu Linux (on 16gb RAM). And Prusa Slicer, OctoPrint, GIMP, Kdenlive, InkScape and productivity software are all running smoothly on it.

Classic Medalta Potteries Beer Bottle Mold

Making a new mold using 3D printing

This picture has its own page with more detail, click here to see it.

The original bottles were hand thrown and very heavy. This one, for example, weighs 525g. Our bigger slip cast equivalent with a modern shape, 3mm thick walls and much higher capacity weighs only 400g.

The color, enduring glaze fit and the type of clay used by Medalta indicates these were likely fired at least to cone 10. Energy was cheap at the time and the Saskatchewan clays they used require high firing.

This is a test mold to determine if the swing top stopper will work on a neck of this shape. This mold only weighs 87g and the walls are printed to only 0.8mm thickness. Two natches are sufficient to keep the halves aligned perfectly. Pieces will shrink about 12%, thus the larger size. We will use tissue transfers for the decorations, the GA6-B glaze for the inside and shoulder and G2926B transparent for the body.

Videos

Links

Got a Question?

Buy me a coffee and we can talk