18 Replies Latest reply on Jan 31, 2019 4:08 PM by Dwight Livingston

    Flip New Mate Not Old

    Brian Brazeau

      Here it is

        • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
          Josh Brady

          You do realize you can tell SW not to flip mate alignments, right?

           

            • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
              Dwight Livingston

              Josh Brady wrote:

               

              You do realize you can tell SW not to flip mate alignments, right?

               

              Josh

               

              Using the "Prompt before changing mate alignments on edits" makes for really tedious work. I hope and expect that the problem can be defined in a way that does not require using this option all the time.

               

              I'm using SW2016 and I don't have the option "Allow creation of misaligned mates", but I've read the description and don't believe that would change the issue.

               

              Dwight

                • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                  Josh Brady

                  Dwight Livingston wrote:

                   

                  Using the "Prompt before changing mate alignments on edits" makes for really tedious work. I hope and expect that the problem can be defined in a way that does not require using this option all the time.

                   

                   

                  Dwight

                   

                  Here is what I get when I try to flip a mate that would cause errors:

                   

                  I just click "No".  Doesn't seem so tedious.  If it really gets tedious, I just click "Don't show again in this session".  SW doesn't flip a single mate until tomorrow or I crash it, whichever comes first.

                   

                  If I click "No", SW keeps my mate parameters, including the invalid alignment, in the mate property manager.  I can flip the new mate to make it OK, or even just click the checkmark to add the mate, even though it's invalid.  If I do so, I'll get this box:

                   

                   

                  Again, nothing gets flipped.  I can pick whichever of those options I want, or hit Cancel to not add the mate after all. 

                   

                  How would you envision the situation be handled?

                    • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                      Josh Brady

                      OK, I just read the "screw and block" post a little closer...

                       

                      You really DO want SW to flip other mates.  BUT you want to be able to specify "Only flip mates that involve this component".  Would that be accurate?

                      • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                        Dwight Livingston

                        Josh

                         

                        Well, I finally captured one. See the attached zip file for the (SW2016) assembly, and a video for a demo. The gray part is a fixed base, the green part is fully mated up and therefore "fixed", and the magenta part is the new one, not quite fully mated. Start a concentric mate between holes in the green and magenta parts, then flip the new mate while you're still creating the new mate in the new part.

                         

                        The "Prompt before changing mate alignments on edits" option does give you a warning, but it does not preview what is going to happen. What happens is unexpected. And after it happens, you can't flip back to where you were.

                         

                        Let me know if the same thing happens in your system.

                         

                        Thanks

                         

                        Dwight

                          • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                            Josh Brady

                            Looks like my system behaves the same... But I never have the issue of flipping mates because I always say, "No". 

                             

                            On my system, in this case, "Undo" does get you back to the original state.

                             

                            If I were actually working on this assembly and ran into this situation, I would:

                            -Respond "Heck no, don't flip my daggum mates!"

                            -Keep the alignment conflict and finish the mate (SW16 may not allow you to do this?)

                            -Examine the mates of the pink part in the feature tree:

                            OK, obviously it's "Coincident 1" that's in conflict.  But, I don't even want to flip that mate.  I screwed up.  There is no possible combination of any mate flips that will fix this assembly because that's not the right face to mate with the grey block anyway.  So I don't even flip that mate, I delete it and mate the proper face to the grey block.

                              • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                                Josh Brady

                                Also... You said "What happens is unexpected"...

                                I'm curious what would be expected?  You told SW to flip other mates to force this one to solve.  Flipping "Coincident1" solves with fewest mate flips, but results in a rather large interference.  This is just a WAG, but I wouldn't be surprised if the algorithm gives preference to solutions that do not create interference between bodies.

                                 

                                In this particular case, what would you want the result to be?  If you could specify that SW flip only mates that involve the pink one, would that help?

                                  • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                                    Dwight Livingston

                                    Josh

                                     

                                    You make many good points that are quite relevant to the issue. I feel we are getting closer to this thing that plagues my assembly work. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, or if Solidworks could be more help, or if this actually is unintended behavior and more like a bug, or perhaps there really is an enhancement in this. I very much appreciate your interest and comments.

                                     

                                    I do expect the magenta part to flip. Here's why I do:

                                    1. I want it to, so I expect it to.
                                    2. It's the new part, so it should make the accommodations.
                                    3. It is not fully fixed, so it should be the one to move.
                                    4. It has only one mate that needs to break (Coincident1), while the green part has to break two mates (Coincident13 and Distance1).

                                     

                                    I could see some reason in an argument that says Coincident1 breaks because its higher in the tree. If true, well, I guess we have to deal with that. It's not something I really want to be doing, though, paying attention to mate hierarchy.

                                     

                                    Perhaps part of my problem is that I am always making mates flip as part of my workflow. I am so used to it, that this occasional bad behavior catches me out. But that is why I don't want to back up just because of a flip warning. Things have flipped my way for hours, so let's keep going.

                                     

                                    It seems unfair that you can't flip that new concentric mate back the way it was, that instead it gets locked into the bad pattern. Yes, you can bail out with the red X. In this test assembly, it's even easy to figure out what is wrong and work around the problem. I suspect for some assemblies that will take a lot of work, but maybe it's easier than I think.

                                     

                                    If there is no magic way to make things behave the way I expect, some sort of preview would help. A yellow ghost of the whole assembly's future would be nice (probably expensive in terms of time to build), but at least SW could light up the part that is going move. Then, if I see the wrong one is going to move, I can select the other part? But that means I have to confirm the mate every time there's a conflict, even if SW is going to pick correctly 98% of the time. Better if I can keep rolling without having to approve the choice, and when it goes wrong, let me back up and make the switch then.

                                     

                                    Dwight

                                      • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                                        Josh Brady

                                        Dwight Livingston wrote:

                                         

                                        Josh

                                         

                                        I do expect the magenta part to flip. Here's why I do:

                                        1. I want it to, so I expect it to.
                                        2. It's the new part, so it should make the accommodations.
                                        3. It is not fully fixed, so it should be the one to move.
                                        4. It has only one mate that needs to break (Coincident1), while the green part has to break two mates (Coincident13 and Distance1).

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                        This is good... To have the software behave the way you want, we first have to figure out exactly what it is that you want to happen, then figure out how to take the information that it knows and make the same decision...

                                        1. (this one's gonna be tough...)

                                        2. The software could be made to figure out which component was dropped in last... but sometimes you might drop in components early and then mate 'em later.  This could be seen as "unpredictable" by users.

                                        3. It's fully fixed once you add that mate... >;-D  But yes, this is determinable

                                        4. This is also determinable.  However, as I mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised if SW puts a priority on trying not to overlap components.  Not that this is the right thing to do, but that would be one thing that could explain choosing to flip 2 mates instead of 1.

                                         

                                        Just to make sure I understand... How do you expect the magenta part to move when it flips around?  Do you want it to keep its mate so that it's almost fully overlapping the grey piece, or do you want the software to recognize that you'd rather have the other face mated to the grey piece?  The former is easy... The latter is a bit tougher. 

                                         

                                        But, it kinda sounds like adding one extra click might do it for you?  Like instead of just asking to flip mates, that same message could ask you to select components whose mates are allowed to flip, then hit the button?

                                          • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                                            Dwight Livingston

                                            Josh Brady wrote:

                                             

                                            2. The software could be made to figure out which component was dropped in last... but sometimes you might drop in components early and then mate 'em later. This could be seen as "unpredictable" by users.

                                            Yes, I should have put "new part" in quotes. Maybe "new part" status can be shown, and therefore corrected ahead of time, before the trouble starts?

                                            Just to make sure I understand... How do you expect the magenta part to move when it flips around? Do you want it to keep its mate so that it's almost fully overlapping the grey piece, or do you want the software to recognize that you'd rather have the other face mated to the grey piece? The former is easy... The latter is a bit tougher.

                                            The former, for sure. I wonder if that's why they flipped the way they did in this particular case, because the desired flip would cause overlapping material? I kinda doubt it, but who knows.

                                            But, it kinda sounds like adding one extra click might do it for you? Like instead of just asking to flip mates, that same message could ask you to select components whose mates are allowed to flip, then hit the button?

                                            Yes, it might. If so, it'd be better if that click equaled the green check mark and completed the mate. Then there'd be no extra click.

                                             

                                            Maybe they could color the bodies blue and pink and give you a little box with a blue check mark and a pink check mark, and you can either pick one of the check marks to select which flips or you pick some option back in the Mate Properties window to escape. I guess you want a third nasty-red check mark that breaks the new mate and nothing flips. And all this happens only when there's a conflict.

                            • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                              Dwight Livingston

                              Brian

                               

                              Yes, that is an example of flipping a mate, and having that video as a starting point helps define the issue. I'd like to see a video of the real problem, which is adding a new mate that rearranges other items in the assembly.

                               

                              Dwight

                              • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                                David Matula

                                I'M glad that I am not the only one frustrated with all of this fippin mates.  it is enough to drive one nuts when the first component you put in goes haywire so the new one stays where it got inserted into the assembly. 

                                • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                                  David Matula

                                  with over 800 parts I would rather deal with problem of the new mate vs the 1600 others going crazy and doing something that you don't expect. 

                                  • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                                    Nick Birkett-Smith

                                    I'm still looking for more real examples here, so please do share videos and models with me. If you don't want to share them publicly on the forum then please direct message me.

                                     

                                    Also, if anyone who's coming to SWW 2019 wants to meet up to show me an example (and talk about potential solutions) then please let me know.

                                    • Re: Flip New Mate Not Old
                                      David Nelson

                                      Mine is not old parts moving but the new part.  Get it to where I want 1st mate is fine, second mate it wants to flip ok let it. Then hit reverse and its fine with doing that, but before it had to be reverse???.  Then put in a distance mate and the part flips again let it the hit reverse again and all is still fine.   I think at time that Solidworks is seeing if it can piss me off.