Mate Connector Pair

matthew_loew_1

I would like to see an enhancement for a "Mate Connector Pair" - essentially create two mate connectors at the same time at the same location with opposite facing Z-axes and two components to associate. Each Mate Connector would inherit the name of the Pair feature with a "-1" and "-2" suffix.

lougallo

Can you explain the application of this? Why create two?

matthew_loew_1

To make a Mate, there must be two Mate Connectors (one on each component being mated). 

clem_1

I'm thinking what you are asking for is at the bottom of the Mate Connectors dialogue box where it says "Owner Part".  It auto populates with the part that you used in selecting geometry, but you can add more parts to that box.  In my experience so far however the Mate Connector will not solve when more than one part is selected.

billy2

Clem-

Group the parts first and then mate.

I always forget to group first, so ctrl-z is your friend, then group, then move. I've been doing this a lot.

If any component in the group is fixed, then the group is fixed. Like SW, fixed components are not inherited from a child assembly (every assembly needs the group fixed). 

Also, remember there are mate connectors and there are mates. The mate connectors are connected using a mate. Mates allow you define mate connectors on the fly which are limited (can't add translations or rotations to on the fly mate connectors). Stand-alone mate connectors , which I use to position groups must be defined before hand and allow translations or rotations. I typically name these as to not get confused which mate connector controls which group. On the fly mate connectors are neatly tucked under the mate and keeps the tree clean. Stand-alone mate connectors appear in the tree so I use them sparingly because I like to keep things clean & orderly.


I hope I didn't confuse things more.

traveler_hauptman

@Lou_Gallo, To elaborate what @clem is saying with an example... If I was designing two parts that would later have a hinge installed between them but I just wanted to check the motion immediately, I would put a mate connector located at the hinge point (which is off the geometry of either part and so needs the offsets provided by the mate connector) and then associate each part with that mate connector. The I would then mate those two mate connectors together with a revolute mate.

Right now one has to create two separate mate connectors sequentially. Creating them at the same time would be faster...

lougallo

@Traveler Hauptman I think it might be safe to say that you could pick multiple components to attach the mate connector to, so it could be multiple parts that would use it.  When the parts are added into the assembly, it could duplicate that mate connector for mating.

billy2

2015/02/14 8:14am created

Original Post

Ok, so I think I constructed what you guys are talking about.

The Problem
Part studio with 2 blocks:




Assembly with rotate mate connector:



I believe this is new (edit & add move offsets):




You can edit both mate connectors and create a hanging mate connector in space (I really like this):




***Now whats important is that I haven't created a separate mate connector. But as a designer, I not sure this is what I want.



As a designer I want to control the hinge point graphically to make it easier for others to understand what I'm doing. Back in the part studio and create a sketch showing the hinge location:




To pass this location to the assembly I want to access this sketch in the assembly but can't:



A Solution
So I'm forced to create 2 mate connectors in the part studio for each component:




Now I can assembly my controlled hinge point in an assembly to see it move:




I can now move my 2 components with a graphical controlled hinge point using a part studio & assembly:



I think to Traveler's point, is this for real? 2 hinged blocks and it's this complex.

lougallo

@bill the point was clear and by adding the mate connector to be attached to multiple parts would solve this quickly. The process would be very quick but in your example you are adding a connector where geometry does not exist so 'move' is in the mix. I have logged this improvement. 

billy2

Lou-

Where is your enhancement going to occur?  Will you make this assignment in the part studio or in the assembly?
When editing, do you make the change in the assembly or part studio? Do you have to have a part studio and an assembly for simple motion? Whats the relationship between the part studio and assembly? Can I work in the assembly making all the changes without switching to a part studio?

One thing that's true and little known is that PTC got it wrong with parts, assemblies & drawings and everyone who copied this paradigm got it wrong also. The whole "Top down" and "Bottom up" argument validates that PTC got it wrong and we've all been struggle with this from day one. Sorry about all this, but I joined this forum to have this argument.

I just don't see a clear path on how this should work, I don't think bandaid fixes are the solution. I'd like to see a better foundation for designing with a parametric modeler.

Build a real assembly and see how much bouncing around is required to get something done. 

To answer Travelers request, please add motion to the part studio. This is the simplest implementation of 2 bodies that move relative to one another. Why do I need 2 environments for such a simple thing?

traveler_hauptman

@bill I think I see where lou is going with this and I think it will work fine for their current approach with a bit of work on the UX side to communicate to the user the difference between a 'normal' mate connector and multiple instances of a mate connector associated with multiple parts.

I wasn't really suggesting motion for the part studio. It's a really interesting idea. I'm definitely already using underdefined sketches to create these test/exploratory motions. I'll have to think about that....

I agree with you that it would be nice to have sketches available in the assembly for mating or visualization. 

billy2

I like the sketch because you can see the mate connector's relationship immediately and others will understand it down stream in the design process (your offset hinge point). I like the idea of simplifying this workflow/pattern to one mate connector which would minimize the picks to create one of these. Not sure I like the fact that it has to be done in a part studio.

We still have the problem that to make a change to a part studio/mate connector, you have to change to that part studio and can't make this change in the assembly. I'm having to bounce around a lot when trying to design in the assembly. In fact, I can't design in the assembly. Maybe I have to wait till rev 2.

I guess it's my request to eliminate the assembly and have one document type in OS. No more bouncing around. Your example of two bodies & a hinge exemplifies this argument. If we continue with part studios/assemblies, you will have to learn how to do this, it's not obvious. Maybe there's some un-realized power coming that I can't see which justifies this approach or maybe it's a hold-over from previous workflows from relic CAD systems. This isn't as simple as turning a light switch on/off.

traveler_hauptman

@bill It would not bother me to do away with assembly and part studio differences.

billy2

A few weeks ago I imported an assy into OS with the idea I would try and construct a simple project. The goal was to structure part studios & assemblies into something meaningful that was easy to manage, allow design modifications, collaboration and was scalable.

There's many things that need to happen to make this more productive.

lougallo

@bill My suggestion would not bandaid the issue here but extend the current workflow (in Part Studios ) so that you can essentially position mate connectors (reference system) and share that position by multiple parts.  This would be useful for attaching one defined mate connector and share it among multiple parts.

billy2

You just want to use a mate connector as a datum? That sounds fine. I usually assign datums at a top level but why not bottom level datums to control what's going on in the part studio? Then you can mate lower level datums to top level datums? I'd be nice to see this built up. I keep forgetting you can't dimension to a plane, seems like this might be better. Please fix this also.

I'm seeing mate connectors as defining motion and DOF's. You're telling me they're datums also. 

How would that mate connector update if one of the parts moved? Wouldn't it be better to define a sketch with all the logic and then attach a mate connector to the sketch? A mate connector to many parts, how does it update? Would it be predictable? I guess the proper lingo is it deterministic?


How about this, since a sketch knows it's dependencies due to it's constraints, a mate connector attached to a sketch can find all it's body dependencies. So a mate connector tied to a sketch can automatically define all of it's owners and would allow for predictable change.