set of constraints of a specific object

[Shotfree]

good morning to all, I recently passed from the use of creo to solidworks, in using this sw I could not do without noticing that the system of constraints for the realization of the assemblies (if as I understood it) is something unmanageable (naturally if we talk about assembling with a certain number of components, not with 3-5 pieces on the cross). the problems I have encountered are:

1. once all the components are bound, the set of constraints for each of them becomes "mostruous" and the interaction between them is almost "uncontrollable" (I reversed the normal coupling on a component and overturned the component on which this had to be bound instead of turning the component itself)
2. I do not have the possibility to immediately identify the 3/4 constraints that determine the stable (completely bound) positioning of my objects (especially if I have many details bound to a single object).

the above is due to the fact that solidworks determines the calculation of contemporary couplings for all constraints and not chain (I solve the particular 1, then the 2 and so on).
Are things actually like this or is there a way to view the constraints of a single object?

thanks for your sharing and for the answers, I wish you good continuation.

 

[Shotfree]

Does anyone answer my question? ideas, advice?
p.s. I also found extremely "confusionary" the search for failed bonds since, in case of a failed bond in a subset, it is indicated as failed the whole main set (as well as the axieme that fails), and I happened to see failure a set for a trivial drag of a component (made by mistake, mouse click and drag while I was looking at the axieme).

 

[SperX]

many times if the objects (under assemblies) are part of a project (primary aid) I try to realize everything with the same point of origin, so as to insert the design with only one mat...that is, coincident with the point of origin.

 

[Shotfree]

many times if the objects (under assemblies) are part of a project (primary aid) I try to realize everything with the same point of origin, so as to insert the design with only one mat...that is, coincident with the point of origin.

thanks for the answer @sperx Unfortunately, this strategy is not applicable to our products, imagine having to enter all details such as screws and nuts (for example only), by their nature are common to hundreds of assemblies but always have different positions. this makes the strategy of modeling with unique origin useless.

 

[SperX]

thanks for the answer @sperx Unfortunately, this strategy is not applicable to our products, imagine having to enter all details such as screws and nuts (for example only), by their nature are common to hundreds of assemblies but always have different positions. this makes the strategy of modeling with unique origin useless.

for screws and bolts use the automate, create the couplings in the objects... to search more easily the mates in the axieme then use the bar at the top left

 

[Shotfree]

for screws and bolts use the automate, create the couplings in the objects... to search more easily the mates in the axieme then use the bar at the top leftView attachment 71188

it was only to express the concept, pretend to have all standard pieces to be mounted on different assemblies, each with its own origin. For example, pretend that the particular red you are showing me mountains on 200 axiemas and on each one is in a different position, the particular has its own identification code and specific, so I can not duplicate it for each set and at the same time I will always position it differently.

 

[czar]

as already suggested if possible, use subgroups so as to reduce the constraints together by exploiting those already present in the subgroup. each component or subgroup has its coupling folder then at the bottom there is the folder with all couplings in order to input.
It also serves a fixed starting component or subgroup and assign the remaining constraints with knowledge taking into account what will be necessary to change and what impact will have the change, often one or more constraints in the configuration date and reassign of the different.
I have no idea how it works, so I can't do parallels.

 

[re_solidworks]

If you need to see the couplings of an item, together or part that it is, see in the coupling folder that you find just under the name of the part, see below picture.
in case of heavy changes to a set created by assembling the parts on the faces, I think there is no "easy" parameter to handle.

 

[xxfast]

for screws I used uniworks .

 

[Shotfree]

thanks to all for the answers,

as already suggested if possible, use subgroups so as to reduce the constraints together by exploiting those already present in the subgroup. each component or subgroup has its coupling folder then at the bottom there is the folder with all couplings in order to input.
It also serves a fixed starting component or subgroup and assign the remaining constraints with knowledge taking into account what will be necessary to change and what impact will have the change, often one or more constraints in the configuration date and reassign of the different.
I have no idea how it works, so I can't do parallels.

exactly what I have found, in order to solve some "present conflicts" or binding failures, it is necessary to temporarily suppress, block components and things like that, these solutions (in my opinion) are weak and make the management of failures complicated (often it is advisable to remove constraints and put them back).

If you need to see the couplings of an item, together or part that it is, see in the coupling folder that you find just under the name of the part, see below picture.
in case of heavy changes to a set created by assembling the parts on the faces, I think there is no "easy" parameter to handle.

In that way I see all the couplings from and for the selected component, so I find it not practical, moreover I realized that the "contemporary recalculation" of all the constraints is less stable than the calculation to "catena" exploited by other cad.

for screws I used uniworks .

the screws were only an example to make it clear that an object can be used several times and in multiple assemblies.