Solved! Go to solution

Include geometry behavior



I have noticed on many occasions that when using the include command while ordered modeling in part or assembly mode (ex. Sketching for frames or sketching in part) that the included geometry (single wireframe-wireframe chain-tangent wireframe etc..) result is often underconstrained. (maintain assocativity checked) especially concerning end points on line and arcs face edges ETC.


I have to attempt to finish constraining the desired included geometry with sketch relations.... anything that will work basically. There are occasions when I am unable to fully constrain the included geometry making that geometry and anything that is built from it parametrically unstable down the line.


Why does the include command yield so many unconstrained results? Can it be improved thru a fix?


2) What are the best practices to insure that down line updates don't break when using include geometry?








Please see attached screen shot



Accepted by topic author BukkoHC
‎08-26-2015 04:32 AM

When geometry is included, that geometry is associatively...

When geometry is included, that geometry is associatively linked such that arcs are concentric and of equal radii, and lines are colinear.  As you have discovered, end points are not constrained and the overall length of the element can easily change.


Use included geometry to locate edges only and then constrain it as usual to make it robust.  Also be aware that when including geometry, the selection options can impact how the included geometry is associated to the parent geometry.  For instance,


Single Wireframe - easy enought to understand

Wireframe chain - will try and maintain a chain

Tangent Wirefram - will try and maintain a tangent chain

Single face - will maintain all edges on a face

Tangent Face Cain - will maintain tangent connected edges on a face

Loop - not sure about this one but I think it is similar to the Single Face except you pick the loop you want


Production: ST9 MP7
Testing: ST10

Re: When geometry is included, that geometry is associatively...

Thanks for the reply Grundey,

My main complaint about the include geometry in Solid Edge is that it is not as robust or "smart" as the Solidworks "convert entities" command or the "project geometry" command in Inventor.

Both of these commands in the other packages constrain face edges with no problems and are much less quirky when it comes down to weather they break or not downline. That's not to say they don't break..... they're just easier to use and break less often in my experience

I've extensively tested and tried every variation of the include command in Solid Edge in different scenarios where I was having problems and so far the single face and wireframe chain seem to give me the least problem and need the least amount of extra work to keep them from breaking or getting squirley

Don't get me wrong.... I'm totally in love with the SE workflow and I'm very excited about the new frame enhancements coming in ST6 etc but it's a real shame that the include command isn't on par with the similar commands of the other 2 packages. Maybe someday....


Re: When geometry is included, that geometry is associatively...

When using Included geometry, generally, you are using a line for one axis of control. If you want to maintain two axes of control, you must place constraints or include a second line, or element and link to it, as you have found when endpoints do not remain constrained. This behavior is 100% desirable and won't be changed in SE
-Dylan Gondyke

Re: When geometry is included, that geometry is associatively...

Hi Chally,

Thank you for the reply

Looks like I need to take a new approach to using the command.

Would you be kind enough to give me a brief explanation of why this behavior is 100% desirable compared to the other packages? Is it more flexible? I seems to be quite fragile to me. Apparently I'm not setting it up correctly

What are some of the do's and don'ts for the include command?


Re: When geometry is included, that geometry is associatively...

[ Edited ]

To try and give you a physical example, think about if you put a part down on a table, and then butted a 123 block up against its side. Looking top down at the part, I'm calling the side of the 123 block touching the part your included edge. This locks movement in the direction perpendicular to the 123 block edge. To lock movement in the other direction, (keep the part from sliding left and right along the block), we must physically constrain the part/relate it to a second edge, which is perpendicular to the first. (Corner the part, essentially.) In CAD world, this means you must also include enough geometry for a corner, or 'hard' point somewhere, if you want to control movement of included geometry in all directions, not just perpendicular to the line.

You're seeing problems with included elements shifting on geometry that only locks one axis, degree of freedom..... however you want to term this. This is easier to understand if you've got some inspection background and have worked with Datums before and understand what geometric elements constrain what degrees of freedom.

Hope that helps.

-Dylan Gondyke

Re: When geometry is included, that geometry is associatively...

Thanks Chally,

I was working with a project last night and took your advice. I see now that this approach offers much greater flexibility. I'll test and re-test and see if I can break something.