AnsweredAssumed Answered

Over-defining Flexible Subassemblies

Question asked by Emerick Bosch on Jun 24, 2013
Latest reply on Jun 25, 2013 by Don Van Zile

Hello all,


I've just started messing around with flexible sub-assemblies and I keep running into the same problem.


I have 3 flexible sub assemblies. In this case, a linear motor (1) and two linear guides (2,3).


My undestanding and my problem are as follows:

When mating, it seems to me that SolidWorks treats mates at assembly level (i.e. mates are tied down to the subassembly rather than to components).

Because of this, when I attempt to make mates which would over-define a rigid body, it states that the assembly is overdefined without taking into account that some components may now move.


Example - a first coincidence mating of the guide blocks of (2) and (3) and a second coincidence mating of rails of (2) and (3). If the subassemblies were rigid, one of these would be enough to define that degree of freedom. However that is not the real case, in which the blocks and rail may move independently.


Is there a way to overcome this while still using subassemblies (i.e. without having to keep all components at top-level)? I find great use in subassemblies (workflow, creating assembly instructions, etc) and would like to keep them when designing stuff that I need to be able to move (animation, motion analysis).


If it's not possible to keep subassemblies for this, do you guys have a method of working that allows you to effectively model and manage moving assemblies?


Thanks in advance!