I try to arrange some bodies that way, that the rotational axis of their cylinder components is arranged in a plain parallel to the x-y-plane. (see video for illustration)
I imagined to create a reference plain in the right position and then make their rotational axis lying in the plane. But the only relation working slightly in that direction was the "tangential" relation between each cylinder's hulls and the plain. But what I want is to have the rotational axis being aligned, not the hulls.
I include video of my trial and hope to get a hint, what would be a smarter way.
there are several methods leading You to Your wanted result.
First could be to use a "Connect Relation" rather than a tangent
You can select the cylinder axis and the plane here.
But this gives the cylinder the freedom of being rotated witihn that plane.
If this is what You wnat, then ok.
Another approach can be the use of an assembly skecth with lines in it.
So, draw a sketch in Your plane, create lines as place for the axis and then You simply can "Axial Align" the cylinder axis with those lines.
Remaining degree of freedom then will be the translation along this line (and rotation if not locked)
Hope this helps
hawcad has it right. When all other realtions don't fit the situation, connect is the solution. It is also the most unstable relation there is. It's the only relation that can handle 1D to 2D, 2D to 3D or 1D to 3D (like a point on a plane).
Thank You Wolfgang,
"connect" works perfect to align multiple parts. (One just has to know that ... I wouldn't have guessed that). I easily could arrange the individual rotation symmetric parts in the way I wanted.
Now I want to align a set of multiple parts as a whole with a another individual rotational symmectric part. This relation between the set and the individual one should be guided that one rotation symmetric part of the set of parts is elected and should be placed in the plain with the individual rotational symmectric part. All parts within the set of parts should keep their positon relative to eachother.
I would have guessed, that I should relate the set of parts with the "rigid set" relation to eachother and afterwards should use the "connect" tool and relate the axis of the relevant component of the set to the axis of the individual component.
But unfortunately the components within the set are not held in place with eachother, after I arranged them with "rigid set". So probably their again is another way to solve this. I would be happy to get some hints.
For illustration I attach a little video
what is har dto understand for me is, why You try such a sophisticatic approach.
I assume that this middle cylindrical part will be connected to one of those side parts.
Also I must assume that they will have a small hole somewhere, or if not that put a cylinder surface or sketch circle to them.
Or put a coordinate system into.
All those elements now can be used by You for any axial alignment.
Easier, faster and robust for positioning.
This would my advise
The middle cylinder is connected to some components with tubes - that is what I called "set". Three other cylinders can be moved independently. I want to arrange them in that way, that the rotation symmetric axis of the big central cylinder is in one plain with the other independend cylinders.
I further want to play with the arrangement to find the best position for them all. Therefore I also would like to havethe freedom (if I feel it's neccessary) to open a second plain above the first one and put some parts there. So I would like to have one or two plains which I can shift to find the best arrangement.
My initial problem is, that if I connect the big cylinder, not all other parts are in a relation with the result that this arrangement is not fixed. My idea to call them a "fixed set" or to group them was not a successful way.
Unfortunately I don't have enough experience to see the best way for this.
again, I haven't get You fully but as a very old rule:
"If nothing else can help use the old methods!"
So what I have understand now, as You often are talking about planes and movements, etc. so I think - if I have it understood correctly - I would try to use planar (right) alignments between the reference planes of Your parts.
Every part has a global refrence/coordinate system and this can be used for planar relations too.
So no axis, no connection no - this also came into my mind - symmetric relation with one (axis) element, no but simply try a planar with the refrence planes
I think this will work best - at least easiest!
I'm sorry, I don't know the old methods ... I'm just a beginner.
What information from my side is lacking? I try to tell it in other words:
I would like to have a couple of the parts arranged in an assembly-file in that way, that I move them like one part. The guide how they shall be moved is, that the axis of the cylinder from the parts is in the same plain like the other cylinders.
then as You said would be the best to use this plane (from every single part) and give them a planar alignment.
This will put them together at this plane.
Another way could be to define them as rigid set, so they can not move relativeley from each other but absoulteley as a group.
Regarding the "rigid set": I tried to use it, but it did not work aus expected.After applying "rigid set" I still can move parts of the rigid set. I attach a little video, to show what I did. May be You see, what is wrong.