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.

Options

Fastened Mate

lonnie_1lonnie_1 Member Posts: 36 ✭✭
Is  the offset check box shown in the help file for a fastened mate been removed?
It does not show up in the dialog box for me.

Best Answer

Answers

  • Options
    lonnie_1lonnie_1 Member Posts: 36 ✭✭
    Thanks, I guess i should have searched first. :)
  • Options
    jakeramsleyjakeramsley Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 658
    After the recent maintenance this morning, we now have the ability to do offset mating in the mates themselves.  Users can now specify a distance in the x, y, and z to offset when creating a fasten mate.  Likewise, other mates will have similar offsets based on their degrees of freedom.
    Jake Ramsley

    Director of Quality Engineering & Release Manager              onshape.com
  • Options
    3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,470 PRO
    edited April 2015
    After playing a while with mate connectors they are making sense more and more. With offset fastened mate is very fast and powerfull connector. 

    This is actually something I would add to Geomagic wishlist if there was such.. Great work OnShape team!
    //rami
  • Options
    andrew_troupandrew_troup Member, Mentor Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A few things I like about the OnS mate connector concept

    1) The fact that connectors are a durable addition to the part, reflecting design intent. I mean that they remain intact even when assembly mating scheme needs wholesale revision. The user is gently encouraged to think ahead, about the design intent of the part within the assembly, not as an isolated piece.

    2) The avoidance of overconstraint typical in other packages, where lots of people routinely use 3 face to face (or plane) mates, each locking down 3 degrees of freedom, resulting in 9 out of 6 dof being constrained. This is why flipping a single mate alignment in (say) Solidworks can be time-consuming, especially in someone else's model; part reorientation in OnS is trivial. Over-constraint also impedes assembly performance and reliability

    3) Radical reduction in number of mates needed, without resorting to the complexity of highly evolved packages where even moderate reduction requires specialised mate types.

    4) They seem to me to have potential to do duty in other roles: probably as coordinate systems, possibly in lieu of reference points and reference axes, maybe even sharing attributes with manipulation triads. They might come in different 'flavours' (and colours?) to avoid role confusion, but a consistent way of depicting and deploying might be a welcome simplification

    5) It seems conceptually elegant to separate the "noun" part of a mate (this is what we want mated) from the "verb" part (this is how we want it mated).

    There are other things I liked, but they escape me at present.

Sign In or Register to comment.