Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

Mate connector not showing up in assembly?

S1monS1mon Member Posts: 709 PRO
I have a weird problem, and I can't tell if it's a bug, or user error. I had a part with a mate connector as the third feature. It shows up just fine in the part, but in the assembly, it doesn't show. The owner part of the MC is the part that I'm inserting. I just tried moving the MC feature to the end of the tree, and now it shows up in the assembly as expected.

The part goes through some split and boolean add features along the way. Is this MC behavior because of the part IDs? Is this expected behavior?

[I can't share the document publicly]
Tagged:

Best Answer

  • NeilCookeNeilCooke Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 4,228
    Answer ✓
    There is a determinism issue with part IDs when there are lots of splits and booleans. We are investigating how to make it more robust, but for now it is what it is.
    Director, Technical Services, EMEAI

Answers

  • NeilCookeNeilCooke Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 4,228
    Answer ✓
    There is a determinism issue with part IDs when there are lots of splits and booleans. We are investigating how to make it more robust, but for now it is what it is.
    Director, Technical Services, EMEAI
  • S1monS1mon Member Posts: 709 PRO
    I had this idea that if the name doesn't get lost during the split/boolean cycle, then the part ID might be fine too, but I guess I was wrong. With the splits used in my part studio, there are two parts with the same name, so I just tried swapping the order in the Boolean Add, and that didn't solve the problem I (there's more than one split, so I would really need to try multiple things to track this down). In this case, moving the MC to the end of the tree is an easy fix, but yes, it would be nice if there was more control/visibility into the part IDs.

    It's also a little counter-intuitive that the MC shows up in the part but doesn't in the assembly. It seems like the MC should have some sort of indication that it's lost its part, or as you say the part IDs need to be more robust.

    Perhaps having split create two parts with the same name is confusing for the user (i.e. me), since it's not clear which one has actually kept the internal ID from prior to the split. If I had a clear indication which one had inherited the ID, I could be more careful about downstream features.
Sign In or Register to comment.