Inventor 2019 Axis-to-Axis Mate Constraint Default To Forced "Opposed" Solution

[jletcher]

I understand you added it from someones idea, but why could you not have left the default selection the old way? This way it does not screw up other peoples workflows?

When on the fly this thing is now a nightmare. I don't understand why it was even needed but now more clicks more wasted time for me and others.

Make it so users can default to old style please, these are things you should be thinking when making changes. I understand you wanted to please someone but don't do it at the expense of others. You can leave it just change default default to old style, I will never have a need for this new way.

This is going to drive me nuts and many users have already called asking if there is a way to default to old.

This should be easy to fix.

kelly.young has edited your subject line for clarity: 2019 New mate constraint nightmare

[SBix26]

---

@jletcher wrote:

 What do you mean see "if" we should change it? If this is not changed you have just proven 100% you don't care about the user and the money you cost them.

This is something you should jump on and fix asap to prove you care and understand this change cost them money. Time for you all to step up. This should be nothing more then a registry setting.

---

@jletcher You do not speak for all users!  I, a user, approve of the new options and have adjusted to the new default in a matter of minutes.  As @Xun.Zhang stated, this setup is now exactly analogous to the face/face and insert constraints, except they do not have an undirected option.

Perhaps what your clients need from you is encouragement to learn a slightly different workflow and move on, rather than waste time and energy throwing a tantrum because Autodesk had the audacity to change something (in my opinion for the better) without consulting them personally.  Help them understand that every software producer balances the needs and desires of many different users, and that no decision is ever going to be pleasing to all users.  They are part of a user community, with all its benefits and costs. 

If it really is a major problem to use software that other people have a say in defining, the only alternative is to write your own, or contract with someone to write it for you.  Could get a bit expensive, though...

---

Sam B
Inventor Pro 2019.1 | Windows 7 SP1
LinkedIn

[jletcher]

So you went to mocking me because I call this a worthless option?

You alone just proved to all the users Autodesk don't care for them, You can take a bow.

But seeing you typed all this out let me slap it around some.

Personally, still think that either option to be default is not perfect solution.

Personally you don't matter, you don't use this software for production and you should listen to those that do. This is the reason Inventor will fail to be the top software you think what you do is the way and if you don't like it take the road. Thanks for proving my point about Autodesk not caring for those that use their software anymore.

This is not something about default option change, but the mind changes instead.

This is everything to do with default option change, You added time to my projects more clicks for nothing.

 It is a workflow change not a mind set change, you added clicks and more time and if forgot I now have to take time to fix.

You cost users money doing this.

Oh I guess it is not your money so who cares right?

If axis-axis constrain start with directional way from day 1 as Face-Face constrain did, and then add Undirected in later, what’s your opinion? You may have thought Undirected is useless.

 If it was like this from day one that is what I have learned and knew the extra time it took to pick the options and charged my costumers for that time.

Would I have found it useless, that depends.

 I always will try the new options to see if they save time and clicks if they do I will use them if I find them to cost time and clicks for no benefit, yes I would say it was useless.

Seems you are missing the big picture. The options don't upset me, you removing my default is. You changed my workflow and cost me time and money.

In theory, Axis-Axis do have two possible direction solutions, which is similar with “Face-Face” constraint like Mate and Flush since faces own its normal direction.

 So, let’s start with “Face-Face” constraints - Mate and Flush. As you know, there is no Undirected for Face-Face constraint, is it right? Besides, Mate was selected as default option. Why nobody complains?

Why no complaints, that is simple that is the way you developed the software and we learned it that way. Now after 15 plus years change it and see how many complaints you get.

The same situation for Insert constraint as well, it does not contain Undirected either and Opposed is the default option. Why nobody complains?

Why no complaints, that is simple that is the way you developed the software and we learned it that way. Now after 15 plus years change it and see how many complaints you get.

“Axis-Axis” constraints - Opposed (=Mate) and Aligned (=Flush) which is the same behaves compared with “Face-Face”. Additionally, Axis direction control was missing in legacy versions. Now we add this important direction factor back to persist the unique result of constraint chain solving.

 It was not missing the developers then knew it would be worthless and here we are I am proving it is.

(well after you watch my video on your attempt to fool a users) Stay tune this is just getting fun.

Again it is not the fact you put in worthless options it is the fact you changed 15 years of the same workflow for  thousand and thousands of users added clicks for nothing but cost us time and money.

As for why Opposed is selected by default, please take a look at “Face-Face” or Insert constrain which is selected as default even 50-50 percentage chance and Opposed is the one compared with Face-Face mate or Insert.

Please take a look at they have been like that from day one and the workflow for it has been set for 15 plus years. From the start of Inventor you knew you had to pick those options to get the result you want. You knew that cost was need to charge your costumers for the time to click a option.

Again it is not the fact you put in worthless options it is the fact you changed 15 years of the same workflow for  thousand and thousands of users added clicks for nothing but cost us time and money.

Please correct me know if above logic is incorrect for you.

 I find no logic in mocking a user that can prove you added worthless options and changed 15 plus years of workflows for no benefits.

Below is a case you are asking for which was created from scratch in Inventor 2018 and every part was full constrained, however, if the design changes a little bit, the result is not persistent any more. Please check out the data from enclosed file and the demo video.

Now the fun begins.

I am really please you took the time to make this assembly, shows me you really hate me to the point you made a file that would fail from the start.

Can I ask how long it took you to figure out what you needed to do to make it fail?

I am even more happy you supplied the files so I can look at them.

Now I made a nice video for you please watch.

So what did you think?

Strange I don't have that issue as you did, don't you think?

The only thing you proved here is Autodesk Inventor Software QA Engineers don't know how to use Inventor, could be why you all are destroying the greatest software there was. I also think you should be removed from the Inventor Quality Assurance Team. How can you assure quality if you don't know how to use it?

 I would never EVER teach your method of constraints, it was doomed to fail.

All I did was change 1 constraint and added one. I provided the files for you.

This is why these new options are worthless and if someone would teach the person that wanted these options the right way to constrain we would not be here today.

There is no directional bug like @johnsonshiue believes there are just people that need to learn the right way to constrain an animate Inventor files.

 Again keep your worthless options just set the undirected as the default. You keep everyone happy why don't you understand that?

 This is the time to step up and prove you care for all the users that started with Inventor from day one, if it was not for us, we all would be on Solidwork's forums.

Screencast will be displayed here after you click Post.

2de1904f-c787-47b6-9f37-6735ce7010d2

[jletcher]

You do not speak for all users!  I, a user, approve of the new options and have adjusted to the new default in a matter of minutes. 

No I don't but I do speak for a lot of them. I am not saying remove the options just set undirected as default so it does not change the workflow of many.

 It has nothing to do with adjusting either it has to do with the extra clicks and the extra cost for it.

As @Xun.Zhang stated, this setup is now exactly analogous to the face/face and insert constraints, except they do not have an undirected option.

 It is not the options again it is you changed workflow of everyone for a worthless option, face/face and insert constraints have not changed not extra click not extra cost.

Perhaps what your clients need from you is encouragement to learn a slightly different workflow and move on.

Again not about learning it is about the extra clicks extra cost and more time to do a worthless option.

Autodesk had the audacity to change something (in my opinion for the better)

What is the better? Please provide proof how extra clicks is better. Improvements is to cut clicks and the time to do something. This does absolutely nothing but add those.

Prove me wrong please I learn but there is no benefits to these options.

Help them understand that every software producer balances the needs and desires of many different users, and that no decision is ever going to be pleasing to all users.

 They understand if Autodesk left the undirected the default and added these options on the back side all users would be happy. You get your worthless options and I keep my workflow. Prove me wrong that don't keep all users happy.

Why is it so hard to see my way keeps everyone happy? Is it the hate you have for me, you are clouded and don't see it?

Again just prove your point all I see is a lot of talk but not one has proven this is a improvement and saves time.

 But I have proved it cost time and is worthless. But I will go back to saying keep it just set default to undirected, everyone is happy then.

[jletcher]

Here is the video, the site bugged out on me.

Screencast will be displayed here after you click Post.

2de1904f-c787-47b6-9f37-6735ce7010d2

[jletcher]

Don't understand why video is not uploading

[Mark.Lancaster]

Everyone, enough is enough..

Lately the forums have just become a very negative environment and so much bashing/hatred going on.  Why is this? 

The insults and bashing that's going on in this single posting I just don't understand.   This is supposed to be a professional site and both sides need respect.. 

I full understand not everyone is going to be happy..  We all have our opinions and sometimes those opinions lead into frustrations (which then boil over into our words)..  Take a step back and calmly explain your point of view but not in words that you're doing now.

In addition everyone is not going to get their way.  If you're so unhappy with Inventor and what's going on..  Why do you continue to use it?  If its holding back your department or costing more, go evaluate other CAD option..  If these changes are impacting your end results, why did you upgrade?  Did you just upgrade without fully testing your workflow?

In my opinion this single posting is a clear indication its a waste of every-bodies time because its going no-where and not solving any issues.    Just more hatred on the forums.. 

Okay my 2 cents..

[jletcher]

Lately the forums have just become a very negative environment and so much bashing/hatred going on.  Why is this? 

When you have software that has issues and work falls behind people get upset because there jobs are on the line.

This is why I believe Autodesk should slow down and stabilize Inventor. Almost every release has issues and Inventor was never like that. Inventor was the most stable of all software s  out there now it is not.

 I remember it was safe to load a new releases without waiting on a service pack now the word is don't load Inventor till the 1st service pack is uploaded. If this was my company I would not like that and address it.

If you're so unhappy with Inventor and what's going on..  Why do you continue to use it?  If its holding back your department or costing more, go evaluate other CAD option

 In changing to another software is a very costly thing, you must remodel years of work. This was one of the downfalls of 3D in the start. No one wanted to leave Autocad 2D because of the legacy data. New companies started with 3D did not have that issue.

If these changes are impacting your end results, why did you upgrade?

 We are forced to upgrade because of subscription Autodesk made us go to or lose license. 

Did you just upgrade without fully testing your workflow?

No it was tested but what am I going to do I was forced to upgrade this client to keep license. 

In my opinion this single posting is a clear indication its a waste of every-bodies time because its going no-where and not solving any issues. 

Well I have to take some of the blame I should not have attached issues to this I should have left this one and started another. So some of this was trying to figure out the other issue.

This thread was a simple request to set undirected mate as default so it did not cost more time for users that did it that way for 15 plus years.

I don't really see any insults to anyone, as for the bashing I am use to it people hate me because I don't conform to the changes but challenge the reason and how it was done.  I don't believe changes should cost more time unless it really had to.

Thanks for the reply.

[Cris-Ideas]

Hi,

I see this thread is quite hot. So I decided to add my comment.

I am equally inventor user as owner, as I directly pay for the software of mine.

The new direction axial mate constrain idea is generally good, and I appreciate it.

I never particularly liked undirectional axial mate as it was allowing for elements to flip and in order to obtain stable solution it always required additional constrains that must had been applied only to fix this extra DOF.

However

@Xun.Zhangand AT Autodesk in General

I see that this new idea was introduced in the way that is rather annoying and can easily be recognised as lack of respect for the users. This should not happen. Not providing option to set default setting for a command is wrong from the begging

Even if you (Autodsek) think some setting is better than other it DOES NOT necessary mean other users share this view.

Making it possible to allow users to set default values for command, dialogue boxes, selection lists, etc. is so easy that it is really not possible to understand why you do not make this little extra effort to make this customisable.

Really.

Does no one from public relations or any part of the Autodesk corporation that is responsible for making sure changes in the software are well received was not competent enough to see that?

Just give users choice and you will have much less complains and work to handle them.

Is it really to difficult?

Why you just do not add this defaults to application options? This is so easy.

And equally important:

When you make change MAKE SURE it is working !

Worst thing you can do is to launch new software that does not work.

Personally I was not able to try because I am still on 2017, but if there are any errors in assembly solving related to new solution you should fix them in NO TIME (not in months, or next relies.) It is YOUR responsibility to ensure anything you do with the software does not make it  worst than it was before. If it is the case you MUST act IMMEDIATELY!

You are in engineering business not in arts. This requires reliability and responsibility.

You are not supplying just any software. You take peoples money and you provide the TOOL to work, not a toy.

If tool does not work or brakes normally user has it fixed or replaced quick because supplier is bond by warranty that client requires when buying.

There are serious bugs in inventor that is not capable of properly handling DOFs, POS REPS, DVR, PATTERNS and complexed constrain solving.

So in the very core of the software. They need to be fixed, for YOUR OWN best interest.

As you can see, new axial mate - good idea but it makes you enemies because you did not introduced it in reasonable manner.

Instead of getting credit you get hate.

Think this over.

Cris.

[jletcher]

Sorry I have not replied till now.

 Thank you for seeing it from the start what my point was.

You said:

Happens often in flexible subassemblies.  That doesn't meet your stipulation of being "fully constrained", but if it were fully constrained there would be no point in making it flexible.  The most common case for me is with hydraulic cylinder models that are set up to be used as flexible subassemblies. 

Correct I don't find flexible assembly be "fully constrained".  I would never use flexible assembly in anything I have to animate it can be a mess. 

 I also teach my clients to drive constraints rather then the drag animation. Drag animation is unstable where driving the constraint is more stable.

 In saying that I would never use flexible on hydraulic cylinders but would use a drive constraint within the hydraulic cylinder assembly and adaptive, better control and it is how the real world is.

Thanks for your reply.

[SteveMDennis]

Hello @jletcher

I do see your points. I unfortunately cannot give you the answer you want right now this minute. Suffice it to say that a large number of us have been discussing this for some time even before your thread started.

We have made some mistakes with this change.

Let me give you some information about this change, not to try to mollify you or anything just trying to share as much information as possible.

My team was responsible for this change starting with the idea station post originally.

We have had many many customers over the years complaining about the workflow that @Anonymous pointed out where to get it pointed in the right direction you had to quit the constraint command and rotate the part and reapply the undirected constraint.

As you correctly pointed out this could be corrected by applying another constraint that enforced the direction.

I believe (having spoken to many customers on this very topic and having been part of the Inventor development team for over 20 years) that the "problem" was that many people believed an axis-axis mate like this was enough and they did not appreciate the fact that it was truly undirected, i.e. we could flip it anytime later if Inventor deemed it necessary as other constraints were added.  The Inventor team did a poor job displaying what this constraint actually did and allowed.

So once the user got the axis-axis in the direction they wanted but if they did NOT put the second constraint on it to really lock it down than they could easily fall into the other more concerning problem which many of our large customers seemed to do... some future update after adding some other constraint would effectively blow up their large assembly by finally deciding it was time to flip that axis-axis mate and everything went to heck in a handbasket and the large assembly they had seemed to explode!  I recognize that you seemed to never run into this and my guess is it is because you had better attention to detail in adding that second constraint to fully lock it down, but again we had many customers that were not as attentive or respective of this need.

When we originally did this and released our plans in the beta forum we were actually going to REMOVE undirected. We no longer wanted you to be able to leave your system in this unstable situation (which you avoided by your best practices).  It was actually @DRoam that convinced our team that undirected was still needed and we ended up putting it back in.  Our technical leadership really wanted to steer users away from doing a workflow that could lead to bad downstream behavior, users are not FORCED to put on the other constraints.

BTW: once an assembly blows up due to us flipping the constraint sometime later the cause is VERY difficult to find and correct, as you point out it is an underconstrained problem but those are difficult to find and fix.

We are moving as quick as we can towards having dialogs and panel just remember your last used which would address your problem, allowing you to continue to use Undirected if you so desire.

We are also moving towards having a predictive element to this workflow such that when you make your second pick we will default to the closest answer (aligned or opposed) so that at least after this initial constraint creation you get the same result as undirected.  I understand that this will not make you happy or solve your problem if the second constraint you always add should be in conflict with the choice we made because instead of flipping silently you will get a conflict.  This is a new twist to this that I had not considered, I was convinced that the predictive choice would solve all complaints I had heard about this but this thread changes that for me.

We clearly did not get this right for you but as someone pointed out here with this type of change we will not make all 300K users happy. We tried to do what we believed to be the best solution for the long term given the unpredictability of Undirected.

If I could go back in time I would NEVER have done undirected nor would there be a Mate and Flush for plane-plan constraint, they would also be a Mate with aligned or opposed options (for the plane normals).

I think both were a mistake.

As you said you got used to the plane plane not having an undirected and you got used to axis-axis HAVING one.

Again, I just wanted to share the internal story of how we got here and repeat that we are talking about this a lot. I am hopeful that what we come up with will address your concerns but I honestly don't know if making Undirected the default again will be the final decision. It is an option but I don't want to promise you something that might not come true or start another thread by another user saying "You had it right why did you put it back!!!!"

[jtylerbc]

@Xun.Zhang

My feelings on this are a lot less strong than James's.  My points were mainly to point out that he was correct that the new directional options are (at least partially) redundant with other constraints that would be needed anyway, and as a result perhaps should not have been the new default option.  James mentioned that he doesn't care that the options were added, he just doesn't want them as the default.  I'll go further than that myself - I think it's probably a good addition for certain situations (Flexible subassemblies in particular), but am not sure I would want it as my new default (based, admittedly, on very limited experience).  Once my home computer is reestablished a bit more and I get 2019 back on it, my opinion may change, but for now, this is what I think.

---

@Xun.Zhang wrote:

Hello John, James;

Personally, still think that either option to be default is not perfect solution.

This is not something about default option change, but the mind changes instead. If axis-axis constrain start with directional way from day 1 as Face-Face constrain did, and then add Undirected in later, what’s your opinion? You may have thought Undirected is useless.

---

That may very well be true, at least in part.  It would certainly be possible to get used to the new way of working with the axis mate, and either make sure the correct direction or Undirected is used.  At my company, I am tasked with being the company's expert on Inventor and knowing these sorts of subtleties.  Everyone else is just trying to get things done.  They don't keep up with everything that changed from release to release.  They're trying to finish a design and crank out some drawings.  If a change disrupts what they are used to doing, but has a clear benefit once they understand what's going on, that's fine.  However, a change like this one disrupts what they were used to doing, and the benefit is less clear.  In such a situation, I would probably prefer the old way remaining the default to cause less confusion.

---

@Xun.Zhang wrote:

In theory, Axis-Axis do have two possible direction solutions, which is similar with “Face-Face” constraint like Mate and Flush since faces own its normal direction.

So, let’s start with “Face-Face” constraints - Mate and Flush. As you know, there is no Undirected for Face-Face constraint, is it right? Besides, Mate was selected as default option. Why nobody complains?

There is typically no other constraint, which would be required anyway, that can take the place of the Mate/Flush directional choice.  Something had to be the default, and Mate was selected, presumably because it was thought to be the majority, or at least an arbitrary 50/50 split.

Compare that with the Axis-Axis mate, which typically does have a second constraint that takes care of the directional solution.  Now you must either make sure that the directional setting used on the Axis-Axis mate matches up to the Mate / Flush constraint that you may not have even made yet, or that the direction is set to Undirected. 

For users that have spent years just picking Axis-Axis, then adding another Mate / Flush constraint that sets the direction, the need to make this consideration for every Axis-Axis mate they make is a potential disruption and source of errors.  And when they do remember to do it correctly, in most cases they will see little to no benefit from doing so, since the second constraint would have set the direction anyway.  Since the benefit of the option seems to be situational, the use of the option should also have been situational, not default, in my opinion.

[jletcher]

 Thank you for the reply.

 You said:

The new direction axial mate constrain idea is generally good, and I appreciate it.

I never particularly liked undirectional axial mate as it was allowing for elements to flip and in order to obtain stable solution it always required additional constrains that must had been applied only to fix this extra DOF.

Do you have a sample of this flipping? So far no one is able to provide one. I would really like to see it happen and not be a issue with how it was constrained but an issue with the undirected axle constraint.

Most of the flipping issues I have been able to solve with proper constraints.

 Also so you know this still needs another constraint to fully constrain the part.

[Cris-Ideas]

---

@jletcher wrote:

 ...

Do you have a sample of this flipping?

..

---

Yes I have. This is particularly easy to get in case of flexible assemblies.

you can watch one example in this thread post 73 Flexibility not working properly in inventor - BUG that has been there for ever

Other examples of similar type in other videos in this thread.

Axial mate is one of the biggest trouble makers in assembly solving as it is not recognised properly in DOFs analysis nor the solver it self.

In the thread mentioned above shortly I will be posting new video showing how unstable it is to solve assembly when it is used.

So as said, I appreciate new axial mate concept. (not the way it was introduced)

However do think that you should not be forced to use it if you do not want, and you should be able to set default setting for any of available options.

Here you have my full support and understanding.

I would also like to be able to set default setting for my self (probably to aligned).

Cris.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

@SteveMDennis

I might be just thick headed here, as I've tried going through the videos and comments on this thread, but I think there is still one related issue that I see that has nothing to do with "old dogs and new tricks".  I'm not sure if this is being addressed, but I suspect it's what your team has been discussing (with the "predictive element"), but I just want to confirm this is being looked at.

Let's say I have this assembly. One of the blocks is grounded. The other has an axis to axis Opposed Mate on the edge of the 2 blocks where the work axis is shown (the work axis is not in the game here, just being used for illustration). 

Then when we try to add a mate constraint to the two red faces, the previous opposed axis mate, does not allow the preview to do anything, and the user can apply the mate... but immediately gets  a constraint conflict warning.

In earlier versions of Inventor the preview allowed the Mate with mate solution to flip the ungrounded part up to show the 2 red faces mated, and  the user could tell this was the wrong choice.

With the opposed solution mate in place, the user should have used the Flush solution in this case, but that is not obvious to new users or to seasoned users on more complicated file sets, and the preview does nothing to show this now, and the reason for the constraint conflict warning is not clear to them.

This is the only issue I see with this new option as implemented (obviously other people, see other issues) , but I'm not sure I was able to get confirmation that this is what is being discussed, in my earlier replies to this thread.  

If you have a moment, could you just confirm that this is part of what is being discussed, and if  it is not maybe add that to the discussion? 

Thank you.

[SteveMDennis]

---

@Curtis_Waguespack wrote:

@SteveMDennis

I might be just thick headed here, as I've tried going through the videos and comments on this thread, but I think there is still one related issue that I see that has nothing to do with "old dogs and new tricks".  I'm not sure if is being addressed, but I suspect it's what you're team has been discussing, but I just want to confirm this is being looked at.

Let's say I have this assembly. One of the blocks is grounded. The other has an axis to axis Opposed Mate on the edge of the 2 blocks where the work axis is shown (the work axis is not in the game here, just being used for illustration). 

Then when we try to add a mate constraint to the two red faces, the previous opposed axis mate, does not allow the preview to do anything, and the user can apply the mate... but immediately gets  a constraint conflict warning.

In earlier versions of Inventor the preview allowed the Mate with mate solution to flip the ungrounded part up to show the 2 red faces mated, and  the user could tell this was the wrong choice.

With the opposed solution mate in place, the user should have used the Flush solution in this case, but that is not obvious to new users or to seasoned users on more complicated file sets, and the preview does nothing to show this now, and the reason for the constraint conflict warning is not clear to them.

This is the only issue I see with this new option as implemented (obviously other people, see other issues) , but I'm not sure I was able to get confirmation that this is what is being discussed, in my earlier replies to this thread.  

If you have a moment, could you just confirm that this is part of what is being discussed, and if  it is not maybe add that to the discussion? 

Thank you.

---

The preview shows nothing because the compute of that preview FAILS. If you have preview on and nothing happens something is adaptive, or the solve is going to fail (there is a 3rd condition I can't remember). No Preview when preview is on is a bad thing just about everywhere.

The old behavior you show is the exact thing that @jletcher is complaining about. Because you now have opposed no Mate Plane/Plane will work, but in the old world because it worked undirected we can flip the planes to satisfy the mate plane/plane and behind the scene we also flipped the axis-axis mate but you didn't know that!  We could do that because either axis/axis direction is valid in undirected.

I believe you have made James' case for him to the judge and jury! 🙂

It is the key part of the discussion and as James' has educated me was something we didn't consider in our rush to get you guys to "do it the right way" with a direction to avoid the silent flipping.

@DRoam tried to get us to see this in the beta discussion but this regression in workflow wasn't readily apparent to us.

[Cris-Ideas]

@SteveMDennis

So axial mate was in fact "directional" from the begging?

Why then this was hidden from the start?

It would be much easier if this was explicitly directional from the begging.

Cris.

[SteveMDennis]

---

@Cris-Ideas wrote:

@SteveMDennis

So axial mate was in fact "directional" from the begging?

Why then this was hidden from the start?

It would be much easier if this was explicitly directional from the begging.

Cris.

---

@Cris-Ideas Sorry, what did I type that led you to say that?

Axis axis mate has up until 2019 been undirected. Either solution was considered correct by our assembly solver.

Plane plane mate was directional from the beginning. Mate was opposed and Flush was aligned effectively.

Insert was always directional from the beginning and where we first coined  the terms aligned and opposed.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

@steven.dennis wrote:

The old behavior you show is the exact thing that @jletcher is complaining about...

---

Thank you steven.dennis... I'm usually pretty good about seeing through a frustrated user's emotion and pulling from it the "technical statement of the problem"... but my earlier posts on this thread contained some misinformation and misunderstanding on my part, as to what was being discussed, as well as what was going on .... and there seemed to more "I don't want to change my methods" in what was being discussed since I last participated in this thread vs. what I came to understand the issue to be... but it sounds like I was just slow on the uptake, and you and your team are on the case. Thanks again, and good luck on the solution (wish I had more time to be involved in the beta program).

[Cris-Ideas]

---

---

@Cris-Ideas Sorry, what did I type that led you to say that?

....

---

It was this part of your previous post.

"

..flip the planes to satisfy the mate plane/plane and behind the scene we also flipped the axis-axis mate but you didn't know that!

"

So misunderstanding than?

Especially this part of the axial mate flipping.

If it must had been flipped, than before flipping it was defining some direction. Otherwise it would not had to be flipped.

Cris.

[SteveMDennis]

---

@Cris-Ideas wrote:

---

---

@Cris-Ideas Sorry, what did I type that led you to say that?

....

---

It was this part of your previous post.

"

..flip the planes to satisfy the mate plane/plane and behind the scene we also flipped the axis-axis mate but you didn't know that!

"

So misunderstanding than?

Especially this part of the axial mate flipping.

If it must had been flipped, than before flipping it was defining some direction. Otherwise it would not had to be flipped.

Cris.

---

OK now I understand @Cris-Ideas.  

So a better understanding of undirected inside our solver will help maybe.

Our solver was written by a good friend of mine but he was a math guy 🙂

In pure math an axis really has no direction right?  We can argue that but I think that is why he did axis-axis as undirected. What this means is either "direction" is valid.

When you create a legacy axis-axis mate he would simply say if I can, move one of these axis to the other in the smallest move necessary.  That meant he moved it to what we are calling aligned OR opposed based on minimum move required I believe.  Let's say he chose to move to what we are calling opposed now.  He has a valid solution and moves on.

Now later in @Curtis_Waguespack case with the red faced picture the only valid solution is the "flip" the axis-axis mate to be what we are calling "aligned" now... no problem he doesn't care, Axis1 is still mated to Axis2, he didn't care that he had to flip the entire part around.  We never told you that one direction or another was chosen it just happend to line up with one "direction" that Steve and team are now calling aligned or opposed.

Hope that makes sense to clarify what I originally said.