Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape, CAD, maker project and design.

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.

Assembly: Why do Suppressed Parts Error Associated Mates?

Don_Van_ZileDon_Van_Zile Member Posts: 183 PRO
edited August 16 in General

When Parts are suppressed in an assembly the mates corresponding to the parts shouldn't error out in my opinion; they're still valid when the Parts aren't suppressed right? They should be valid with simply some visual indicator that they're those mates are valid, but the Part(s) are suppressed. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Comments

  • brucebartlettbrucebartlett Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 1,631 PRO
    Are you thinking there should be a differentiation for errors that are created by suppression which will help solving mate problems? 

    How do you feel about related mates being deleted when a part is deleted? I find some time I first suppress a part to make the mates fail, relink mates to a new part, then delete the original part.

    Engineer ı Product Designer ı Onshape Consulting Partner
    Twitter: @onshapetricks  & @babart1977   
  • Don_Van_ZileDon_Van_Zile Member Posts: 183 PRO

    @brucebartlett I may have parts suppressed temporarily during the design and they may still very well be valid later and I don't want errors showing up in the List as it may interfere later interrogating other "real" errors of newly added mates etc... I would think this will also correspond to working with Assembly Configurations when they arrive.

    If parts are deleted then I think the corresponding mates should be deleted as well. The redefinition prior to deleting to other components is a nice workaround. Either way, if we had a visual for which mates are simply suppressed should still work in your case.

  • brucebartlettbrucebartlett Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 1,631 PRO
    edited August 16
    Ahh, ok. It's a bit of work but in this case, I would name the mates and suppress them along with the part.  Now we have the ability to reorder mates, so I would group them together as well.  Hopefully, folders for mates will come soon too.  
    Engineer ı Product Designer ı Onshape Consulting Partner
    Twitter: @onshapetricks  & @babart1977   
  • steven_elliott555steven_elliott555 Member Posts: 2 PRO
    edited September 10
    agree with @john_mcclary
    red angry mates tell me there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  In these cases, its not a problem.  Its just that the parts are suppressed.

  • Don_Van_ZileDon_Van_Zile Member Posts: 183 PRO
    edited September 10
    agree with @john_mcclary
    red angry mates tell me there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  In these cases, its not a problem.  Its just that the parts are suppressed.

    I was hoping someone from Onshape chime in on changing this behavior...
  • jakeramsleyjakeramsley Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 546
    agree with @john_mcclary
    red angry mates tell me there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  In these cases, its not a problem.  Its just that the parts are suppressed.

    I was hoping someone from Onshape chime in on changing this behavior...
    Hi Don_Van_Zile,

    This is something we can look into, but will likely be prioritized behind other work that we are doing in Assemblies.  Essentially, the current behavior isn't great but it is technically right as the individual mates now fail to solve when including a suppressed instance.
    Jake Ramsley

    Director of Quality Engineering              onshape.com
  • Don_Van_ZileDon_Van_Zile Member Posts: 183 PRO
    edited September 11

    @jakeramsley Thanks for the honest response; I still don't like the exiting behavior. I would think this work would be part of the "Configured Assemblies" spec since components will invariably required the need to be suppressed and suppressed without error; unless you guess have something else planned  of course!
  • Don_Van_ZileDon_Van_Zile Member Posts: 183 PRO
    edited September 12

    Another "error" behavior that unnerving is with the system solving for things that haven't happened yet; and take it too far. When adding mates and selecting the newer green check applying it from the toolbar popup the next mate is already overdefined. This makes me think for a second that the previous mate overdefined the assembly almost every time only to quickly glance again and be reassured it's just trying to auto-solve.... for NOTHING even selected...for the next potential mate. this needs to be changed too in my opinion with the next mate waiting for input not being shown as an error:/

    Worse yet, it even starts in an error mode to the user which I can get past. But this isn't intuitive.






  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 980 PRO
    edited September 12
    It is just reminding you there are no inputs, sometimes you may hit shift+enter a couple times and you will have an extra fastened mate with no input, so you can spot it easy. (happens to me pretty often actually :) 
    I think red would be ok in this case. (OR yellow)
  • owen_sparksowen_sparks Member, Developers Posts: 1,612 PRO
    I'm content enough with he above by choosing to interpret red as "not happy yet" rather than as a hard error state, but agree orange would be nicer.

    Owen S.
    Production Engineer
    HWM-Water Ltd
Sign In or Register to comment.