- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
@MechMachineMan, that's certainly possible. Complicating matters slightly, I didn't write the assembly-level code (a former coworker did), so I'm not extremely familiar with it. However, I think it's also possible that you're not exactly duplicating my scenario.
Just to make sure we're speaking the same language as far as testing: In-place-edit twice to get down to the part in the subassembly. If you actually edit something directly in the subassembly, the rule runs and everything updates as expected. I have on occasion used this to force the rule to trigger by making an insignificant change (such as rotating a cylindrical part about its own axis) before returning back to the top level.
In actual use, the part is edited in-place two levels deep from the subassembly, then you return back to the top level and save. The top level assembly and the part will show as needing a save (defaults to Yes), while the subassembly will default to No.
Typically, no changes are made at the assembly level. If there are changes made at that level, it is generally to swap out end fittings, in which case the problem goes away because the sub will want to save anyway.
Interestingly, the rule is triggered properly when changes at the top level force a change via Adaptivity. As a result of this, larger geometric changes to the model as a whole generally update correctly, while tweaks specifically to the hose's sweep path do not. This means that large errors in hose length are generally prevented, but smaller errors are incredibly easy to create.