Mate Connector with multiple Owner Parts? Shared?

christopher_owens

This goes back to my "in space" Mate Connector for parts that don't physically touch.  I would like at least two parts to "share" a Mate Connector. For the moment I need to create two Mate Connectors, one owned by Part 1, the other owned by Part 2. (and Part 3...) which are on the same "skeleton point" in the Parts Studio. The Mate Connector would have to be "rolled" to the end of the feature list. Or listed the way Surfaces are in the lower list. OR the Mate Connectors are listed under the Part to which they belong. Looking at the Feature List you can't tell which goes with what until you Edit them....I guess they could be renamed to stay organized.

traveler_hauptman

@christopher_owens Here's the previous discussion: https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/318/mate-connector-pair

@lougallo Added what you are looking for to the todo list at that time

christopher_owens

As a "caveat": In the assembly Mate Connectors are listed under their Owner Part in the order they were created in the Parts Studio. I "rearranged" the Mate Connectors in the Parts Studio to get this ordered list under the Skeleton Part. But does make it handy to do Fastened Mates by selecting the Mate Connectors from the list!

andrew_troup

christopher_owens wrote:

This goes back to my "in space" Mate Connector for parts that don't physically touch.  I would like at least two parts to "share" a Mate Connector. For the moment I need to create two Mate Connectors, one owned by Part 1, the other owned by Part 2. 

Personally, I have not much enthusiasm for this proposal, admittedly without having created the opportunity to think through the deeper implications. I think it would constitute an elevation of convenience over versatility and robustness. Such parts would not be suitable for reuse in other contexts without scrapping the shared connector (thereby kneecapping any existing assemblies) and re-establishing unshared connectors for each part. 

It would require introducing a new class of connector, which would need a different visual representation and creation workflow. Apart from weldments and the like, such connectors (being so limited in their reconfigurability) would not, I think, see much service.

I would rather see the modelling elements remain simple and versatile and, at some future date, their interface be streamlined to ease the creation of multiple mate connectors for weldments and such.

Solidworks did this broad class of "new front end" interfaces outstandingly well on occasions, for instance, their "Copy with Mates". This, to me, was an elegant triumph which, while drawing only on existing elements, yet contrived to deliver a considerable improvement in ease and expedition. Whereas many of their other attempts to provide convenience, relying on addition of new attributes and elements (like Mate References, or the dreaded Toolbox) were often half-baked, and promised more than they delivered.

andrew_troup

Weldments are not actually (thinking about it for a few more moments) a problem, because they would not generally require an assembly, hence no need for connectors.

So I think it's even narrower field of applicability. In fact, the only instance which springs to mind for me right now is bolted assemblies, especially modular ones with intervening (and interchangeable) elements providing mating faces, and particularly those with arbitrary connection angles, oblique in more than one plane, so that a simple orthogonal approach, such as building the frames on a bunch of planes off layout sketches in a part studio, does not fly.

Correct me if I misunderstand, @christopher_owens . Your tendency to "think out loud" sometimes leaves me unsure of what durable findings you are reporting, and what firm conclusions (or questions) you eventually put.

Not that I'm in well qualified to criticise those who "think out loud", as my last two posts abundantly testify !

christopher_owens

Thanks for the info @traveler_hauptman  and @andrew_troup ! Sometimes it is quicker to Ask A Question, then try to type in the correct keywords for a Search!

andrew_troup

christopher_owens said:

Thanks for the info @traveler_hauptman  and @andrew_troup ! Sometimes it is quicker to Ask A Question, then try to type in the correct keywords for a Search!

I agree, this forum is often remarkably fast with answers.
I would, however, urge everyone to think about how best to keep it that way.
It may be that there are "long term public good" aspects other than simple speed, worth considering before deciding whether to open new discussions on issues already discussed.