Give us better control over face/axis mates

[DRoam]

Proposed controls:

So here’s the issue:

When constraining axes… we CAN’T define the orientation (pointing same or opposite direction).

When constraining faces… we HAVE to define the orientation (mate or flush).

The consequences of that are:

• When constraining axes, we have NO CONTROL over their orientation, which can result in an under-defined assembly and undesired results… unless we take the time to create an additional Angle constraint for every Axis mate.
• When constraining faces, we are FORCED TO CONTROL their orientation, even if we would rather their orientation to be open to manipulation by other constraints. This forced over-constraining means that down the road, if we change certain other constraints, the assembly will break (become sick) until we flip mate to flush or flush to mate on just the right constraints.

[DRoam]

One thing I didn't address. Even when we have a undirected mate selected, we still need to be able to specify an offset between the faces. This should be measured in the positive direction from the first face, just like it is now. The only difference would be, with the Undirected mate, the orientation (opposing vs. aligned) of the second face isn't forced by the constraint. Only the distance from the first face is.

In light of that, it might be helpful if the little red arrow was still shown pointing from the blue part in the Undirected mate icon to help communicate how the offset distance is measured (that is, that it's measured in the positive direction from the blue part).

On that note... it would be helpful if the part colors in the Solution type icons matched the Selections colors, to help distinguish which corresponds to which.

[DRoam]

Just to clarify what I meant above (note the slight change to the Undirected icon):

This makes it more obvious that you can still define an offset from the first selection, but the orientation of the second selection isn't forced.

[Anonymous]

Would also be great if it defaulted to undirected for when 'classic' use is required

[inv.ideareview]

@DRoam, @Anonymous, have you tried the enhancement on mate using axis in R2019? Does it work fine for you?

[Anonymous]

I haven't experienced any problems with the constraint, it is a definite improvement. I have had however several customers comment that they now have more work to do, where they were used to placing an undirected axis mate then defining the orientation from other constraints they now have to select the undirected option after placing the constraint.

From their point of view with the software as it is...

If I want a directed mate there's a 50/50 chance that I would have to flip the constraint

If I want an undirected then 100 percent of the time I will have to select it from the menu

With undirected as the default solution type then....

If I want directed I have to select the orientation I want which is 50% more clicks for directed

If I want undirected then don't have to select anything just OK the constrain 100% reduction

Over all it would be quicker.

Regards

Phil

[DRoam]

@inv.ideareview, if you're able to access the Beta feedback community, please take a look at the thread regarding this there. A couple of us have left some feedback similar to Philip's.

Here's a summary of the still-missing functionality:

1. We can't specify a Flush/Aligned solution before selecting round/axial geometry
2. We can't specify an Undirected solution before selecting round/axial geometry
3. We still don't have the flexibility to specify an Undirected solution for face-to-face constraints