AnsweredAssumed Answered

Deleted In-Place mate, now in I'm in trouble

Question asked by Dale Murley on Nov 21, 2012
Latest reply on Aug 21, 2013 by Mark Soldan

Like • Show 1 Like1
Comment • 9

I don't normally build a new part referencing an existing part in an assembly, but it seemed like the right thing to do in this case. It was a sheet metal door that will be hinged onto a sheet metal box. Anyway, after designing the door and locating door pivots on the box and the door, I decided I wanted to make the door swing open and close on the box. So the first thing I did was delete the in-place mate of the door. Even though there were warnings about deleting the in-place mate, I did it anyway. Now my door part has major rebuild problems. It seems the sketches are missing important references.

Any suggestions on how I can fix the model of the door now?

Thanks,

Alin Vargatu Nov 25, 2012 2:07 PM

Correct Answer

Dale, have you tried my suggestion of leaving the InPlace mate with the original component? Make a copy of that component and suppress the original component.

Now test by changing the referenced part and see if the copy changes even if the original is suppressed.

I believe your multibody method is overly complicated and quite dangerous down the road (too many files to update in a long run).

See the reply in context

No one else had this question

Outcomes

Ian Worrall Nov 22, 2012 3:27 AM

You need to replace the missing mate references with dimensions.

Actions

Bjorn Hulman Nov 22, 2012 6:02 AM

If you created fastening holes etc in relation to other parts in the rigid assembly you may want to dimension those into place in each respective part also.

Actions

Alin Vargatu Nov 22, 2012 8:04 AM

Dale, watch this video for my suggestions on how to deal with InPlace mates:

Actions

Michael Jonquiere Nov 22, 2012 9:31 AM

Its not a problem Dale. Simply edit the sketch and add new relations and/or dimentions.

There are many ways to go about this... moving the door. One would be to sketch the door as you did in context, open the part break the links to 'in context relations and simply dimention the part up which is what you are going to be doing in this case.

Hope that helps.

Actions

Dale Murley Nov 22, 2012 2:21 PM

Thanks for all your suggestions. Since I use SW2011, the "enveolpe" option isn't available to me now.

Actions

Alin Vargatu @ Dale Murley on Nov 22, 2012 3:01 PM

The envelope is a nice one, but in our case you can just copy the component and suppress the original. Test it, it works for me in SW 2012.

Actions

Dale Murley @ Alin Vargatu on Nov 23, 2012 12:20 PM

I had marked this as answered, but just unmarked it because I think I found another solution.

Instead of creating the door from the assembly, I created the door as a multi-body part with the cabinet, and then saved the bodies into a new assembly. Even though by default they are "fixed", you can then "float" them and assign any mates you like. Does this methood make sense? What are the drawbacks that I have not yet discovered?

Actions

Alin Vargatu @ Dale Murley on Nov 25, 2012 2:07 PM

Dale, have you tried my suggestion of leaving the InPlace mate with the original component? Make a copy of that component and suppress the original component.

Now test by changing the referenced part and see if the copy changes even if the original is suppressed.

I believe your multibody method is overly complicated and quite dangerous down the road (too many files to update in a long run).

Actions

Mark Soldan Aug 21, 2013 1:23 PM

Alin's suggested solution is definitely the best approach. I do this all the time. It is the only method that allows you to achieve both a flexible (moving) assembly (as opposed to "rigid") and take advantage of in-context relationships.

Actions

9 Replies

Ian Worrall Nov 22, 2012 3:27 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
You need to replace the missing mate references with dimensions.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Bjorn Hulman Nov 22, 2012 6:02 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
If you created fastening holes etc in relation to other parts in the rigid assembly you may want to dimension those into place in each respective part also.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Alin Vargatu Nov 22, 2012 8:04 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Dale, watch this video for my suggestions on how to deal with InPlace mates:
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Michael Jonquiere Nov 22, 2012 9:31 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Its not a problem Dale. Simply edit the sketch and add new relations and/or dimentions.
There are many ways to go about this... moving the door. One would be to sketch the door as you did in context, open the part break the links to 'in context relations and simply dimention the part up which is what you are going to be doing in this case.
Hope that helps.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Dale Murley Nov 22, 2012 2:21 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Thanks for all your suggestions. Since I use SW2011, the "enveolpe" option isn't available to me now.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Alin Vargatu @ Dale Murley on Nov 22, 2012 3:01 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  The envelope is a nice one, but in our case you can just copy the component and suppress the original. Test it, it works for me in SW 2012.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Dale Murley @ Alin Vargatu on Nov 23, 2012 12:20 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    I had marked this as answered, but just unmarked it because I think I found another solution.
    
    Instead of creating the door from the assembly, I created the door as a multi-body part with the cabinet, and then saved the bodies into a new assembly. Even though by default they are "fixed", you can then "float" them and assign any mates you like. Does this methood make sense? What are the drawbacks that I have not yet discovered?
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Alin Vargatu @ Dale Murley on Nov 25, 2012 2:07 PM
      Unmark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Dale, have you tried my suggestion of leaving the InPlace mate with the original component? Make a copy of that component and suppress the original component.
      
      Now test by changing the referenced part and see if the copy changes even if the original is suppressed.
      
      I believe your multibody method is overly complicated and quite dangerous down the road (too many files to update in a long run).
      Like • Show 1 Like1
      Actions
Mark Soldan Aug 21, 2013 1:23 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Alin's suggested solution is definitely the best approach. I do this all the time. It is the only method that allows you to achieve both a flexible (moving) assembly (as opposed to "rigid") and take advantage of in-context relationships.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions

Deleted In-Place mate, now in I'm in trouble

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content