Mate a plane to another plane

[dlewi123]

Please explain to me how to coincident mate a plane from one component to a plane of another component.

[wersy]

Use "Joint".

[dlewi123]

You mated a point on a face, neither of which have anything to do with my question at all.

[jhackney1972]

Please attach your model so the Forum users can see what "planes" you are wanting to mate.  @wersy used a joint which may use joint origins, points, on the two faces which in essence are two planes.  You can use other types of joints such as Planar which allow the faces to move along each other if that is what you want.  If you want to use two Construction Planes, you can but you will have to add a point on each for the Joint to have something to hook to.  Clear up your needs and attach your model and maybe you can get an answer that suits you.

If you do not know how to attach your Fusion 360 model follow these easy steps. Open the model in Fusion 360, select the File menu, then Export and save as a F3D or F3Z file to your hard drive. Then use the Attachments section, of a forum post, to attach it.

[dlewi123]

You don't need a model to understand what a plane is. I literally just want to coincident mate a plane from one model to a plane of another model. How do I do that in Fusion?

[jhackney1972]

@wersy has already done this for you in his reply.  He placed a joint between the faces, planes, of two components.  The faces, planes, are coincident. 

[a.laasW8M6T]

set the joint type to Planar?

[jhackney1972]

Your idea had been already suggested in Message #4.  I believe the original poster does not believe that a planar face is the same thing as any plane, surface or construction so he will not be satisfied with any solution no matter how accurate and useful they are.

[dlewi123]

Satisfied? LOL!

This is not about what I believe or don't believe. A face is not a plane.

[laughingcreek]

planer faces do define a plane. cad 101.

fusion doesn't have mates.  it does have joints.  important to keep in mind that mates and joints have some overlapping functionality, but they are not the same thing and have to be used differently.

joints require discrete points as part of their definition.

joints act on the entire component they are applied to, not just an individual item. (ie the components origin, sketches, bodies, construction geometry etc. are all positioned when using joints.

constriction planes don't have a discrete point, so can't be used by themselves.  something else has to be included. (component origin, or a sketch, or a body)

[dlewi123]

Playing around in Fusion this weekend, I came to the same conclusion, and what seems like the solution.

From my brief experiences so far with Fusion, I have a few takeaways:

1) Autodesk do not excel at marketing, teaching, or integrating joints. The proof is the thousands of videos on YouTube that build assemblies with no joints at all.

2) Joints have potential to be good, if they were implemented better.

3) Forethought is key to building assemblies, and see #1.

Placing points strategically in models to be mated, and then assigning them JOINT ORIGINS seems to be the trick. This workflow, in my brief time with it, appears to be robust enough to stand in for proper mates. The problem is disentangling the weird method of assigning which kind of joint. Many of my attempts produced an exact opposite of my intended outcome, like a "slider" going perpendicular to its intended orientation.

Probably the biggest oddity is assuring the correct Z-axis orientation of the joint origins. It's kludgy.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

---

@dlewi123 wrote:

Placing points strategically in models to be mated, and then assigning them JOINT ORIGINS seems to be the trick. This workflow, in my brief time with it, appears to be robust enough to stand in for proper mates.   1

Probably the biggest oddity is assuring the correct Z-axis orientation of the joint origins. It's kludgy. 2

---

1. joint origins are only needed if joints cannot be realized with the predefined points and the options (between faces or edges). However, especially for inexperienced users and in complex situations, they can significantly simplify the creation of joints and reduce the number of failed attempts.
2. it can be helpful to point out that when the Z-axis has to be reoriented things such as axes, edges, sketch elements, etc. can be used in addition to the component origins. 

günther

[TrippyLighting]

---

@g-andresen wrote:

---

1. joint origins are only needed if ...

---

I think many users are not aware that you can also drag-snap explicit joint origins to each other.

For example, I can click this conveyor system in the screencast together like Lego blocks very quickly.

It's not as powerful as the smart mates can be in SW, but it can be very helpful. 

Also, joint origins have selection priority, meaning you can select joint origins through geometry. In complex assemblies that can also very helpful.