Naming my Mates

ChuckKey

I name mates to help me find them in complicated assemblies.

The convention I use is: "<Part A Name> to <Part B Name>".

This involves a whole lot of tedious typing (even though, in practice, names get shortened).

What conventions do others use?

Would it it be helpful to have a default mate name offered that is more specific than "<type><number>"?

Is this worth an improvement request?

owen_sparks

Hi.

When I'm feeling thorough I do likewise... 

If it were easier to do then I'd do it more often. So I'd say go for the IR, I'll vote

Owen S

brucebartlett

I quite often name mates and also now can group mate together. I rely on the icon rather than a mate type when naming and use names like "main pivot" 

StephenG

Instead of a just list of named Mates at the bottom of the Assembly List I would like to be able to expand a part instance entry and have it show just the mates associated with the instance. One should also be able to expand an exposed Mate to show the other part instance involved in the mate. Currently, the process to locate mates associated with a part instance is cumbersome. 

What also would be helpful is the ability to display a topology graph (maybe through a side bar flyout) of the relationships (mates) that exist between part instances. Part instances would be color-coded/annotated nodes in the graph according to its parent assembly instance and the lines connecting nodes would be stylized/color coded to reflect the type of mate.

Navigation highlighting/selection and changes made in graph view, or Assembly List would be reflect in both simultaneously.

Navigation in the graph would cause the selected item(s) of interest to pan and zoom to the center of the graph with the other elements scaled and positioned to reflect the degree of separation from the selected item(s).

With the above improvements I see significant reduction in the need to give Mates meaningful names to help you remember/understand what they do and help you find them in the mate list.