Suggestions on cylindrical part mating

I don't constrain hardware like that. Sometimes if you have complex motion, like a gripper at the end of a robotic arm things will refuse to move unless you tie down a few more degrees of freedom, in which case you have the choice to constrain the hardware or suppress it.

One way to get around the underconstrained parts is to combine them all into a folder, so you don't see them when you scan quickly.

Daisy

The folder idea is pretty good. I can create a subfolder under the existing folder I have called "Unconstrained".

If anyone else has any tips, keep them coming.

Thanks.

I generally don't tie down the hardware or anything else that doesn't matter. I have learned a way of doing things such that I pretty much don't have to wonder if I tied it down enough or not - I just know how I work. Now, that being said, there are times I do for particular reasons. I figure that since I am always going for the lean and mean, so why spend time putting in mates that take time to solve when they don't do anything for you except turn off the - sign. So, for the most part no, except for the exceptions.

WT

I'm not hung up about totally constrained hardware (or sketches, for that matter). AFA hardware goes, it seems to save more time not constraining than is saved looking for components in need of constraint.

If you do feel compelled to c> Ive asked this question before, and recieved mixed opinions. Say you

On a more philosphical note, there is a fundamental question about if some classes of assemblies should be constrained at all. Back before SW and IV etc. all of the parts were "frozen" in space. Individual parts or groups of parts could be moved and positioned together. This only required a few commands, (align X,Y,Z Delta Move X,Y,Z Rotate around a selected point around the X,Y,Z axis) and could easily develope good assemblies that don't need to be manipulated. The best part about this is that once a part was positioned, there was no question about where it was, or if it got moved etc.

I have been told that this is one of the major features of IronCAD? Not all assemblies should be "static" but for many, this is extremely intuitive and robust.

There are times when movement is very valuable for checking out a design. But, there are also many times when the time spent to constrain a complete assembly, correct errors, etc. that constraints are way more "expensive" then just putting the parts where they belong.

Some of the suggestions that I have submitted to SW has been to improve the freeze command so that some parts can be frozen into place but still "manually" manipulated into position. I think an alternative could be, (and I think that I heard that 2007 would do this) would be to constrain parts to a 3D sketch. Then by manipulating the sketch, manually or with equations, the assembly could be "automated" but there would not need to be the same reliance on constraints as there is now.

For what it is worth,

Ed

I worked on a system (Applicon Bravo) for many years where you just positioned the components. It had the benefit of simplicity and speed (on old slow hardware), but I would never go back to that method.

I very much doubt SWX was the first to add assembly mates - I'm pretty sure Bravo got them around 1997, and I recall it being a feature I'd wanted for several years, having seen it previously on other systems - probably ProE and I-DEAS.

As some of the other posts have suggested, I think it probably slows the solving down if you don't fully constrain parts (in a logical fashion of course) - particularly if other parts are dependent on their position.

I'd normally fully constrain everything, with the exception of a percentage of fasteners, where I get too lazy to constrain their rotation.

John H