Configuring cable weight via FeatureScript: override mass directly, or override material density?

Domechanic

I'm building a FeatureScript feature to configure cables & tubes (many different types). For each cable type we know the weight per unit length (kg/m), the cross-sectional area, and the length — from which the total weight follows directly.

My question: what's the better approach for getting the correct weight on the part —

1. Override the mass directly (compute mass = kg/m × length in FeatureScript and write it as a mass property override), or
2. Override the material/density instead (set density = (kg/m) / cross-sectional area via a custom material() and assign it to the part, letting Onshape compute mass = volume × density automatically)?

Ace_Caoile

I'd just change the material density and let onshape compute the mass… it keeps the script shorter and easier to mod later

Ace_Caoile

I'd just change the material density and let onshape compute the mass… it keeps the script shorter and easier to mod later

EvanReese

I've done some custom features for hoses etc and I ended up overriding the mass because I had to also add in some non-geometric stuff. Some of the end fitting models had errors or were surfaces, which won't give a mass, so it estimated those. It also calculated the weight of hoses full of oil without having to model the oil. It might not matter for you, but I also expect the math-to-override method to perform slightly faster, which really only matters if you're putting a lot of these in one place or making a lot of tubes in one go. I's probably lean toward an override, but I don't think either way is wrong and you can always change from one to the other without a big overhaul.