Old planes and axis'

[dsage]

I have a very large assembly and through the normal creation process planes and axis' were created to constrain parts. As the assembly progressed some planes an axis' were no longer needed and the parts they were based on were moved or constrained to other features. Now the assembly has a few planes and axis showing red and their status is that "the geometry used to create it no longer exists"
For no particular reason other than to get rid of things showing red in the process tree and to make things nice and tidy, is there a way to delete these obsolete planes and axis items. Delete does not seem to be an option (greyed out) and suppressing them does not remove them from the process tree it just grays them out.

Thanks
Sage

 

[indesign]

If the delete is not available it means there is something down the tree relying on that feature. Either another plane, axis, or sketch has used the feature so it can not be deleted until that item is first removed.

 

[bigseb]

Planes and axis cannot be deleted if they are still being used to define down-line geometry. Instead of deleting it would be better to properly redefine them.

 

[bigseb]

Oops... I was too slow...

 

[indesign]

Oops... I was too slow...

Don't happen very often but it's always good to be re-enforced.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Sage -- I use planes, axis, and points extensively. The thing is that, once you no longer need to refer to them, you can hide them to minimize the clutter.

<Edit> -- BTW it is good practice to give names to all your features and references as a simple means of creating a design history. I do not thing this is emphasized enough. Knowing why you created a feature or reference can be crucially important if you need to make a change at some point in the future...

 

[dsage]

Ok. Thanks Guys. I guess I'll have to look more carefully at what they are attached to. I hadn't noticed anything. It's difficult since, unlike constraints, they don't have a drop down showing what they are related to. Hmm - a suggestion for a future release maybe. A little drop down to show what entities are using the plane or axis.

Sage

 

[dsage]

Ok, so just out of curiosity I decided to hunt down these orphan planes and axis. No small task because as I mentioned this is a very large assembly (an engine) with around 200 constraints. As mentioned from the top, the status of all of these problem items reports that "the source of this geometry does not exist".
So I bit the bullet and opened up every constraint to see if it contained one of the offending planes or axis'.
I managed to find in all cases the items were linked to each other but the part they were originally related to was no longer in the assembly.
For instance: a part might have been inserted, a plane inserted parallel to a surface and a second plane created say 90 deg to the first. But then the part was removed and perhaps re-inserted elsewhere leaving the two planes with no reference other than to themselves. All done quite legitimately I'm sure.
There are still a couple of planes showing red but I can't find what they are related to - probably each other but I can't find them anywhere. I would probably have to open each of a about a hundred components, then each of the constraints below them and look in there. I'm not sure

As mentioned I think it would be useful to have a small (+)pulldown for each axis or plane like you have for constraints that would reveal what they are related to. Perhaps I should suggest it as a software improvement (only to never see it come to fruition I'm sure).

Even in this large assembly there are only about 30 planes and axis'.

I'm not sure why nobody else ever mentioned this issue. It has to be a normal occurrence. Perhaps everyone just ignores it :?:

I'm beginning to think I should hire myself out as a software tester because I find things like this all the time when using software of all kinds. Perhaps I have a unique way of working that reveals this sort of thing. Happens all the time to me :wink:

Sage

 

[dsage]

Lew:

To your point about changing the name of constraints etc. I hear what your saying and I do rename things all the time but only for critical constraints like perhaps one that holds the whole assembly to a plane or something like that. One that comes to mind in this engine is a constraint that holds the flywheel from turning. I have it named in the drawing and I have it suppressed because I like to be able to see the related parts move normally when I drag the flywheel around with the mouse. But sometimes I need to fasten the flywheel down for other reasons. So I named the constraint so I could find it easily and understand quickly why it is suppressed. That kind of thing is the only reason I name things now.
I used to rename everything but when there are a couple of hundred constraints and there are a few words describing each constraint the navigation bar (on the left) begins to look like a book and I was finding that to read each and every constraint, process the words in my mind and envision what I was trying to describe to myself becomes too much of mental exercise serving little purpose.
Constraints are not hard to find in an assembly anyway because you can quickly slide your mouse down the list and watch the flashing on the screen to see where they are. More of a mindless exercise that works better (for me) than reading and processing names.
To each his own I guess.
In terms of the issue I've been describing with orphan planes and axis' having an offending plane named might be slightly useful. The plane would have a name that would look legit, might help you understand why it was created in the first place but might be a red herring or even useless as to it's current status.
For instance having a name like "Plane parallel to part A face" - is a pretty large description. But as I pointed out, if Part A still exists but was deleted and moved elsewhere leaving the planes orphaned, the description would only be marginally useful in tracking the issue since the description would no longer describe the current position of the part.

A pull down for the plane would be much more useful. It would show that Plane A is related to Plane B but there would be no parts listed so that would get your attention right away that the plane is no longer useful.

Sage

 

[indesign]

I had the ideal a long time back that they could right click and select show dependents as a way to at least highlight the features that are linked. Remember it may not be a plane or axis but a sketch when in the parts file. Anyhow you are not the only one who wishes there was a better way to show whats linked together.