I'm planning ahead before I over-complicate my tasks. It's been a stressful week to me, so that I'm questioning my assumptions guardedly. Low-hanging fruit, if it's expressed well enough. I doubt it is.
I'll be making some very similar assemblies repeatedly with different inlet & outlet orientation options. In this image, you see lower, middle, and upper connection options numbered. 7 and 8 only apply to the top option. What I mean is that for any chosen combination, the low connection will be at direction / location 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6; same with middle connection individually, and same with upper connection individually with additional options of 7 or 8. Clearly, I'm not showing irrelevant content details. (Transparency pun intended.)
Then, I'd like to take that framework with options and expand it via mirrored assemblies, to derive alternate layouts.
Comments & questions:
The assemblies mirrored only once will need to be exploded and reconstructed with non-mirrored components to preserve realistic valve handle swing directions and pump head orientations. This in itself may defeat this entire exercise, as valves are only pass through objects, but the pump is a central focus which limits possibility.
I've seen that Weldments can behave poorly in mirrors, and will need derived similarly but generated separately. Does a Component containing only a 3D Sketch mirror better than weldment components? Then I can populate the Structural Members after mirrored.
This is intended to derive other arrangements without reiterating from scratch.
Since 1 and 2, 4 and 5, 3 and 6, as well as 7 and 8 are symmetric across Front plane, as are 1 and 5, or 2 and 4 symmetric across Right plane, THEREFORE the mirror command will create the new corresponding counter-arrangement. Is this correct? It seems like basic geometry, but I mentioned a stressful week above.
Now, regardless of the in/out direction option, (with one on bottom as original), aren't both the left and right the very same object, oriented 180 degrees from each other? And similarly, isn't the top one created by mirroring twice, the exact same thing as the original, again in 180 degree orientation? Therefore, the second mirror operation doesn't provide any new arrangements?
And finally, If my Assembly Mirror is allowed to create opposite-handed parts, then the mirror pattern is dissolved, it contains no mates, right? So that designing the original with mates between reference entities only won't help to then use Replace Components to mate original parts where opposite-handed ones were? Will a replaced fixed component be replaced upon the original part's origin and remain fixed? (Thank god for symmetrical design intent applied well on 99% of components.) Should I: Dissolve, Fix, Replace, Float, then Re-Mate?
The options are as confusing in my head as my rambling here. I'm sorry if this is confusing. I am confused. Communication is achieved. Thank you.