very basic assembly ?

[2ms1]

When you add a components to an assembly and have added the constraints you want so it is fully constrained, yet something is upside down or something like that -- technically fully constrained yet something is oriented wrong -- how can you get other orientations with the same constraints? There must be some way of selecting from among several possible orientations.

 

[appinmi]

Most of the time you can change the constraints that you have. Example: change "mate" to "align" or vise versa. Chances are, that if the part is fully constrained, you will have to change 2 of the constraints to achieve your "flip".

 

[byam]

I believe there is a "flip" button in the component placement window, (third button from the left next to the plus and minus) where when you select a certain constraint you can flip the orientation. I have done this a couple of times and it has worked well for me. hope that helped.

 

[2ms1]

neither of these suggestions seems to be doing the trick for me just yet. hmm.


here's a pic, the part on the right needs to be flipped (rotated about its long axis by 180) so it configured like mirror of part on the left:


View attachment 2141

 

[robertib]

Based on the image above, you need to flip the 2 Align constraints to be Mate constraints - this should align the part correctly.

 

[burnsp]

I find that if Iposition the component close to it's desired position and orientation (using ctl-alt-mmb to move the component seperately from the assembly), I generally don't have to flip the part. FYI, I'm using WF2.

 

[Ryan]

I agree with burnsp. I try to orient the model to the approximate location before I put my constraints in, so I do not have to flip constraints.


If your model is fully constrained, you may not be able to flip any of yourconstraints. Try deleting your last constraint, then flipping the one you need re-oriented, then redoing your last constraint.

 

[AHA-D]

You can also temporarely suppress a constraint by unchecking it in the component placement window (third column), instead of deleting it.


Alex
Edited by: AHA-D

 

[2ms1]

I thought mate was for when you have two surfaces to be completely against each other. That's why I picked to "mate" rather than "align" the two surfaces that highlighted in pack. Please explain why mating would have been more appropriate for the other two constraints.

 

[AHA-D]

I thought mate was for when you have two surfaces to be completely against each other. That's why I picked to "mate" rather than "align" the two surfaces that highlighted in pack. Please explain why mating would have been more appropriate for the other two constraints.

The only difference between mate and align is the orientation of the surfaces. Look at it as the inside and outside of the solid. Align is where the outside of the solid points the same way.


For the rest these constraints behave identical : they can be coincident, at a distance or oriented. Don't forget that last one : when an axis and for instance a tangent is insufficient to make a component point in the right direction you can use 'oriented' to drive the direction, at any distance.


A good assembly is a carefull balance between robust relations (preferrably datums, that don't change when the part changes) and functional relations : part features used for a fit in real life.


At least that's my personal preference. I want parts to move when they change without having to alter distances in the assembly.


Alex