Mate connectors and the mate solver need to replace the part transform tool in the part studio.

traveler_hauptman

I tried to find the thread that originated this idea but couldn't so I'm starting a fresh one with a title that the search engine can find. Please link back to the original threads if you know what they are.

I didn't get this idea when I first saw it. I think it was presented as merge the assembly and part tabs. For me these are very different phases of the process and the separate tabs are used in different contexts. The design assembly (part studio) is where you are actually designing parts and figuring out how they all fit together. The as-built assembly (assembly) is where you capture the BOM, present the design to other stakeholders, and basically step away from the detail of individual part design.

But the workflows that Onshape is emphasizing are heavy on moving bodies (parts) around after they are created. Relying on CSG (boolean) operations for tasks that other solid modelers insulate from the user via intelligent feature creation, and how Onshape implemented derived parts means that bodies have to be moved.

I think that the mating system would be a very nice addition to the transform-part operation. Mates and mate connectors are a nice way to specify the relationship between two parts (or between a parts original location and it's current one) and using the mate solver gives the designer a nice way to explore the design as he is working.

I'm trying to think whether mate connectors and mates could replace all the current transform pose operations and while I can't fully picture it, I think it might be able to.

Anyway, keep the assembly tab but definitely add mates and the mate solver to the part studio.

...Here's some of the previous discussion. And here.

nav

traveler_hauptman said:

I'm trying to think whether mate connectors and mates could replace all the current transform pose operations and while I can't fully picture it, I think it might be able to.

Ever since the derived feature was introduced (It was great by the way), you need to have more attention to detail, by this I mean if you have two parts (In Separate Tabs) and want to use the derive feature you either need to build the part you want to insert in the exact position you plan to inserted it in the other part studio or use the transform tool having all the rotation angles and translation distances at hand. Mate Connectors as traveler mentions are a great solution for this (More precise and less time consuming than using the transform tool)

Here is another discussion.

andrew_troup

Here's another recent thread where the point @nav introduces was discussed in more  depth:

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/1364/improvements-to-onshape-august-6-2015#latest

andrew_troup

And this one might be where the idea was first floated:

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/1388/derived-parts-studio-feature#latest

malay_kumar

why would we want mate solver? I would think the only kind of relationship one would be interested in is fastened kind of relationship that apply transform to align two mate connector. There may be some use of offset, primary and secondary alignment etc. 

brucebartlett

Fastened mate style transform would suit me. If that makes sense.

traveler_hauptman

When designing things that move it can help to move them as you design them. A good equivalent is animators flipping sketch pages. Or if you need something closer to home: @ 4:22 in this onshape video where the sketch solver is used to see how things move. The mate solver in a part studio would fill the same purpose. 

brucebartlett

It would be good if you could lock(mate) a derived part to a layout sketch when tracking movements with the final button switch on. 

Might be time to revisit my lamp test case now we have derived parts. In this the doc I have a part studio with a layout sketch which is flexible, most of the time the resulting parts will stick to the sketch after rebuilding and not messing up the assy. I feel it's not quite right have these part move around on the sketch, I think it would be better to have them locked down in a solid part studio then derived into my flexible part studio for movement just need the tool to lock them to the sketch. 

traveler_hauptman

I think the parent discussion to this is here.

traveler_hauptman

Nope, it goes back further. https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/2022