More options for constraints

[Tarik.c]

That would be helpful if it is possible to set this kind of constraints in the assembly environnement: coincidence of a point on a surface (center point on a cylindrical surface, for example).

Generally, that would be helpful to have the possibility to set coincidence constraints by using the points, lines and surfaces of the parts in the assemblies.

[PaulMunford]

I may have misunderstood this? Can't you already create mate constraints to verticies, edges and faces using the mate soloution?

Mate constraints with a flush Solution are limited to faces?

Perhaps you could clarify this - just for me 😉

[Tarik.c]

Hello.
On the image joined to the message left on the "forum", I want to use the command "mate" to make the coincidence of the center point (point in green) with the cylindric surface (on the image, just the axis of the revolution surface appear; no drop down menu to select the surface).
The fact is that the curved surfaces are not allowable to use with the mate constraint.
Regards.

nb. If i want to use tangency, the center point is not allowable.

[PaulMunford]

Ah! I think that I understand. You would like to be able to use cylindrical surfaces in mate constraints - is that correct?

In the meantime, here is a Screencast video showing a couple of suggestions for mating the items you show in your screen capture.

One method uses a transitional constraint, the other method uses a joint.

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/community/screencast/58988a22-463e-41ad-b606-3d834b015157

Does that help?

[Tarik.c]

Yes! I would like to be able to use cylindrical surfaces in mate constraints.

I've tried yours solutions but only the "joint" method works well.

However, I have the impression that "links" and "constraints" are duplicating !? "Links" seems more complete (more possibilities) but seems less user-friendly: too many choices to make at first and the geometric elements selected do not appear explicitly enough. The preview seems to be there to reassure the user about what he is doing ...

I would prefer doing everything through "constraints" because it provides a more certain control of what we are doing.

However, everyone's preferences ...