I use that to my advantage often. Since I use "resizable" sheet metal. I often insert another copy of a sheet metal part. When changes happen to one, they also happen to the other.
If you want a copy of a static part to modify, make sure to name it something different. Then it becomes it's own part.
I never ever have seen anything that the "name" of a part has to do with wether it changes or not if modifiying an original part.
Can You explain, what You are using here.
There is only one setting/option I know to define wether or not an interpart copy is assoziativ or not (and this only is true for traditional parts) and this is found in the interpart options.
But this IMHO has nothing to do what name man is using.
If this option is on then the interpart copy is assoziative if not it is not.
I messed up while making the vid. Do not have time to remake.
The point is, Using another copy of a part with the same name, the parts maintain being identical. Different names, they don't.
I don't think the name has anything to do with it. I think the fact that you used Windows file explorer to copy it breaks the link. Any part copy (properly copied) with link to file checked can be named macaroni or whatever you like and still follow the original.
Using explorer to insert the same name maintained the link. Using explorer to insert the same part with a different name broke the link. That was the point.
Notice how the same name copy changed size and the different name did not using the assembly planes at the end.
Not sure why you are surprised by this. It's a different part without the links of the original. The name is immaterial.
And more confusion: Why did you copy F2 to F3/test when F1 seemed to be the part of concern?
@RB2, That's the same thing as inserting the same part again in a different location. It's just another instance of the part file, not a "copy" as in another file.