Home› General

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

Mate connector not showing up in assembly?

S1monS1mon Member Posts: 2,359 PRO
in General
I have a weird problem, and I can't tell if it's a bug, or user error. I had a part with a mate connector as the third feature. It shows up just fine in the part, but in the assembly, it doesn't show. The owner part of the MC is the part that I'm inserting. I just tried moving the MC feature to the end of the tree, and now it shows up in the assembly as expected.

The part goes through some split and boolean add features along the way. Is this MC behavior because of the part IDs? Is this expected behavior?

[I can't share the document publicly]
Tagged:

Best Answers

  • Options
    NeilCookeNeilCooke Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 5,374
    Answer ✓
    There is a determinism issue with part IDs when there are lots of splits and booleans. We are investigating how to make it more robust, but for now it is what it is.
    Senior Director, Technical Services, EMEAI
  • Options
    eric_pestyeric_pesty Member Posts: 1,500 PRO
    edited February 24 Answer ✓
    martin_kopplow said:
    Saw the same occasionally, thought I was stupid, but at least I'm not alone. This is highly annoying in complex assemblies and very unlogical (even if it could be explained by entity IDs changing after certain operations, but hey, if it can be easily explaned, it could as well be caught!) If a mate connector is linked to a feature (like in above example), the correct owner part could be calculated or forwared even after a split operation or the like has been made.
    I agree the split tool should have a section for managing any MC with the option to pick which of the half should keep the MC (and default to the remaining part if keep both sides is unchecked), and an option to "replicate" the MC to both parts.

Answers

  • Options
    NeilCookeNeilCooke Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 5,374
    Answer ✓
    There is a determinism issue with part IDs when there are lots of splits and booleans. We are investigating how to make it more robust, but for now it is what it is.
    Senior Director, Technical Services, EMEAI
  • Options
    S1monS1mon Member Posts: 2,359 PRO
    I had this idea that if the name doesn't get lost during the split/boolean cycle, then the part ID might be fine too, but I guess I was wrong. With the splits used in my part studio, there are two parts with the same name, so I just tried swapping the order in the Boolean Add, and that didn't solve the problem I (there's more than one split, so I would really need to try multiple things to track this down). In this case, moving the MC to the end of the tree is an easy fix, but yes, it would be nice if there was more control/visibility into the part IDs.

    It's also a little counter-intuitive that the MC shows up in the part but doesn't in the assembly. It seems like the MC should have some sort of indication that it's lost its part, or as you say the part IDs need to be more robust.

    Perhaps having split create two parts with the same name is confusing for the user (i.e. me), since it's not clear which one has actually kept the internal ID from prior to the split. If I had a clear indication which one had inherited the ID, I could be more careful about downstream features.
  • Options
    Dean_GardnerDean_Gardner Member Posts: 88 PRO
    Having the same issue here.  Was this ever resolved?

  • Options
    Dean_GardnerDean_Gardner Member Posts: 88 PRO
    It seems that every time i make a split to the body I lose the MC reference to the part. Seems a shame to not resolve this.  Was beginning to like MCs for their robustness... Just seem to be making new MCs and fixing the assembly all the time.
  • Options
    Taylor_NicholsonTaylor_Nicholson Member Posts: 5 PRO
    Have encountered this issue a few times as well. Quite annoying. Just had this happen again when the split feature only results in one part (split of a single part with a plane and "Keep both sides" unchecked). More understandable when creating multiple parts (still should be fixed), but with "one part in - one part out" this just seems flawed.

  • Options
    blefroy_exsblefroy_exs Member Posts: 9 ✭
    Also having this issue
  • Options
    jerry_berns465jerry_berns465 Member Posts: 4 EDU
    Also having the issue of missing mate connector in assembly.



    Simple box shape with a polygon (hex) shape extrude cut through the box.

    Turn on the hex sketch visibility and then added the mate connector at the center.

    Place the part into an assembly, but the mate connector does not appear.

    If this is not a bug, can someone explain why the mate connector is not available?

    Regards,
    Jerry

  • Options
    martin_kopplowmartin_kopplow Member Posts: 264 ✭✭✭
    Saw the same occasionally, thought I was stupid, but at least I'm not alone. This is highly annoying in complex assemblies and very unlogical (even if it could be explained by entity IDs changing after certain operations, but hey, if it can be easily explaned, it could as well be caught!) If a mate connector is linked to a feature (like in above example), the correct owner part could be calculated or forwared even after a split operation or the like has been made.
  • Options
    eric_pestyeric_pesty Member Posts: 1,500 PRO
    jerry_berns465 said:
    Also having the issue of missing mate connector in assembly.



    Simple box shape with a polygon (hex) shape extrude cut through the box.

    Turn on the hex sketch visibility and then added the mate connector at the center.

    Place the part into an assembly, but the mate connector does not appear.

    If this is not a bug, can someone explain why the mate connector is not available?

    Regards,
    Jerry

    I think what happened is that the "owner" of the mate connector is the sketch and not the part.. If you used the sketch to define the MC it would define to be owned by the sketch by default (which didn't use to be an option).
    In this example I am not sure why you would need to define an explicit mate connector at the center of the hex when there is an implicit MC right there always available...
  • Options
    eric_pestyeric_pesty Member Posts: 1,500 PRO
    edited February 24 Answer ✓
    martin_kopplow said:
    Saw the same occasionally, thought I was stupid, but at least I'm not alone. This is highly annoying in complex assemblies and very unlogical (even if it could be explained by entity IDs changing after certain operations, but hey, if it can be easily explaned, it could as well be caught!) If a mate connector is linked to a feature (like in above example), the correct owner part could be calculated or forwared even after a split operation or the like has been made.
    I agree the split tool should have a section for managing any MC with the option to pick which of the half should keep the MC (and default to the remaining part if keep both sides is unchecked), and an option to "replicate" the MC to both parts.
  • Options
    martin_kopplowmartin_kopplow Member Posts: 264 ✭✭✭
    edited February 24
    If there was an implicit mate, it'd make no sense, of course, but I suppose the above just an example. Yes, in the above sample, it could be because the owner was a sketch. I'll try to keep a eye open for that. There are reasons to put explicit mate connectors on parts, though, for example as a mark for later arrangements in the assembly, and because implicit mates tend to be compromised by features such as fillets or drafts. Since these mates would be potentionally important for downstream work, they should be permanent, and it is crucial to understand why and when they might disappear and how to avoid.
    Them just disapperaing without a notice is a probably the worst option.
  • Options
    GWS50GWS50 Member Posts: 379 PRO
    edited February 25
    Same problem here. Actually just worked out that the mate connectors were attached to the origin which was hidden
  • Options
    jerry_berns465jerry_berns465 Member Posts: 4 EDU
    The reason I made the MC at the part studio was because it was nearly impossible to use the implied MC while in the assembly. I could hover over the edge of the hex hole, but could not find any way to snap to the center of the hex hole. Only after tilting the model so that the hex was nearly seen from on edge could the center be selected.
    If there is a better way to select the center of a hex hole, I would really appreciate seeing a video.
    Maybe if OS had some kind of snap cycling it would be easier.
  • Options
    glen_dewsburyglen_dewsbury Member Posts: 578 ✭✭✭
    jerry_berns465 said:
    The reason I made the MC at the part studio was because it was nearly impossible to use the implied MC while in the assembly. I could hover over the edge of the hex hole, but could not find any way to snap to the center of the hex hole. Only after tilting the model so that the hex was nearly seen from on edge could the center be selected.
    If there is a better way to select the center of a hex hole, I would really appreciate seeing a video.
    Maybe if OS had some kind of snap cycling it would be easier.
    From the assembly. While you're selecting an implicit mate connecter, Hover over the face of the block and press/hold shift key. This will keep selection on face and allow to slide over the hex hole and select center.
  • Options
    jerry_berns465jerry_berns465 Member Posts: 4 EDU

    Thank you, Glen! I thought I tried the SHIFT press/hold method, but it certainly worked tonight when I tried it.
    I will be certain to share this with the students. Thanks again!

    Regards,
    Jerry
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In

Categories

Vanilla Forums