less risky to use "Move + As-Built Joint" instead of "Joint"?

[maker9876]

In order to make assemblies of components more robust, am wondering whether, instead of assembling using joints (to move components into place) it might be better to assemble components using Move commands, and then afterwards to create As-Built Joints?

The speculated advantage would be that, if joints were to fail, components would nevertheless be correctly positioned. If there are sketches that contain projections of assembled items it’s particularly important that they don’t fly apart because of joint failure. (In particular am thinking of the error scenario where ALL joints suddenly FAIL because of the “Position calculation failed due to initialization “error. Have had this and it's terrifying.) 

One of the doubts I have stems from hearing people say that it’s best to avoid using Move commands! (Something to do with Copy/Paste like timeline clutter...) So if every time there’s an as-built joint there are 1-2 move commands in the file, this might be problematic? (Am thinking of using a point-point move command to move components into place, and perhaps a “free-move” command in order to rotate it, if necessary.)

Would anyone like to comment?

[coffeQWDCK]

Thanks for the reply, Jeff!

You explained very well why the method I'm using is bad practice. The issue you're describing was exactly what I encountered, and that's why I started digging in to the topic.

My issue with the standard joint is exactly that it does the move and join in one go, making it really difficult sometimes to get things where they should be. You sometimes need to create offset planes, sketch points and what not, just to have something to refer to. While with the move/align approach I can carefully, in several steps, make sure that the component is in the exact position before creating the joint. I guess this is where Joint Origin comes in handy? Maybe it was you who mentioned it earlier in the thread. I'll have to look into this.

I like the idea of designing things in place, and making use of the as-built joints original intention. But I always hade the idea that referring geometry from an existing component was bad practice, and that you always need your sketch to be tied to the origin of the component. I did some investigation yesterday, and it seems that I was completely wrong on this. This will definitely make my life easier. Then I can create a new component, project existing geometry into my sketch and use an as-built joint as intended. No moving required. But then the origin of all new component will be placed at the origin of the assembly, which may not necessarily be a problem?

I explained in my previous message why I sometimes need to remove joints.

I'll take my current project as an example.

I'm working on a clock with a mechanical 7-segment display. I started with the display and worked my way backwards to hook up the essentials. Meaning the functional and moving parts, not caring for the overall design at the moment. In order to get things working and having functional joints, I need something temporary to hold them in place. So I create placeholders. A sketch with sketch points that I can tie my joints to. When everything is in place and working as it should, I can start  creating the actual physical structure that will wold the functional components in place, now that I know where they need to be. When the support structure is in place, I need to remove the joints to the temporary placeholder and create new ones with the newly made foundation. When I remove these joints it is very annoying when components decide to fly off when I had already carefully placed them where they needed to be. I guess I could still move and capture position before creating a regular joint. But that seems like double work somehow. I'll look into joint origins and see if it is what I'm hoping for.

[laughingcreek]

---

@coffeQWDCK wrote:
...I like the idea of designing things in place, and making use of the as-built joints original intention. But I always hade the idea that referring geometry from an existing component was bad practice,...

---

so referencing existing components is i suppose a form of "building in place", bit is not what is generally meant by that term.  when you build in place using a top down methodology, any thing that is referenced by more than one component actually lives one (or more) level up in the browser hierarchy.  ie, a skeleton sketch.  cross referencing between components at the same level in the hierarchy should be avoided.  creating a chains of references should also be avoided.

... But then the origin of all new component will be placed at the origin of the assembly, which may not necessarily be a problem?...

---

not a problem for top down, built in place, designs.

reading thru your workflow description, your process seems somewhat convoluted.  can you post a pic or model of a simple project.   maybe we can tweak your process and make your life easier. 

[jeff_strater]

"In order to get things working and having functional joints, I need something temporary to hold them in place. So I create placeholders. A sketch with sketch points that I can tie my joints to. When everything is in place and working as it should, I can start  creating the actual physical structure that will wold the functional components in place, now that I know where they need to be. When the support structure is in place, I need to remove the joints to the temporary placeholder and create new ones with the newly made foundation."

IMO, this is not a bad approach (using a sketch as a stand-in until you develop the real components).  If it were me, though, I would do this by:

1. creating an empty component to stand in for the component
2. add a new sketch into that component
3. make the appropriate joints
4. build out the real components
5. (this is where it differs from yours) Just keep that sketch in there.  Use that sketch to help build out the real component.  There is no harm in this, IMO.  A sketch point is a perfectly valid target for a joint.  As long as your "real" component is built relative to that sketch point, everything should function as needed.  So, no need to delete the joint at all
6. or, if you really want to change the joint reference, don't delete it, just edit it, and select new geometry

[CGBenner]

@jhackney1972 Is this something that you are familiar with?