UCS-Based Constraints Break When Replacing Component

[petestrycharske]

All,

Good morning!  I've been working with UCS-based constraints because I feel they are easier and more efficient that building and organizing iMates and work more closely to the performance we get from FDU connectors.  Unfortunately, I've run into a snag when replacing components, which is breaking the UCS-based constraints...  If anyone can take a look at the video below and let me know if I'm missing anything, I'd LOVE to get this approach to work.  Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to help clarify.  Thanks in advance for any assistance, hope all is well and have a most blessed day!

Peace,
Pete

[petestrycharske]

After doing some more testing with @Curtis_Waguespack, it looks like putting the UCS in a template, or making a copy of the original file, will allow the Component-Replace to work.  I'd still like this to work with UCS's that are named the same, but could probably get away with putting the UCS in a template, for now.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Peter,

The regular constraint checks more than the constraint name and participant geometry name. It also checks the document ID. When the files are created from scratch (carrying different Doc IDs), replacing components will lose its associativity. iMate does match by name (same type, same offset). Would iMate work better in this case?

Many thanks!

[petestrycharske]

@johnsonshiue thanks for the reply.  However, I have some confusion on work planes, because they don't seem to behave the same way as a UCS.  Please see the video below to see what I mean and let me know your thoughts.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Pete,

The workplane works might be a bit of luck. For a simple case, it might work. But if there is other body geometry and the workplane is based on drastically different geometry, Replace Component may lead to failed constraints.

Many thanks!