Hello ´╗┐@BenjaminStarling´╗┐
I'd like to address your points.
1. Yes, you are correct. I should not have simplified by saying the contact behaviour "Auto-Asymmetric" is the same as flipping an "Asymmetric" contact to the same configuration regarding the activity status. I was actually aware of the different assignments of the Keyopts by selecting the one behaviour or the other. But in my use-cases, selecting the same configuration for either ÔÇ£Auto-AsymmetricÔÇØ or ÔÇ£AsymmetricÔÇØ contact the results are always nearly identical. There might be microscopic difference regarding the stresses/deformations, thus neglectable. ThatÔÇÖs why I said that they are exactly the same. But they are not.
2.I will in most cases NOT leave the contact behaviour to "Program Controlled" = "Auto-Asymmetric". I always prefer setting "Asymmetric" when working with MPC bonded contacts. The reason behind this is, by doing this, in most cases I can control how far the MPC constraints are spread on the contact faces and avoid overconstraints at neighbouring contacts. If you do not exactly know what I mean by that, just establish contact between two plane bodies. One needs to overlap the other. Solve twice for flipped contact/target. YouÔÇÖll notice that most of the time, if the larger face is set to contact, MPC constraints are built only within the surface of the smaller face , thus no overconstraining of neighbouring contacts. Here is a comparison: Larger Face = Contact VS Smaller Face = Contact
3. Thanks a lot for your effort & ideas why this might be occurring. I wish the developers could clear it up.
I am thankful for any other ideas.
1. Yes, you are correct. I should not have simplified by saying the contact behaviour "Auto-Asymmetric" is the same as flipping an "Asymmetric" contact to the same configuration regarding the activity status. I was actually aware of the different assignments of the Keyopts by selecting the one behaviour or the other. But in my use-cases, selecting the same configuration for either ÔÇ£Auto-AsymmetricÔÇØ or ÔÇ£AsymmetricÔÇØ contact the results are always nearly identical. There might be microscopic difference regarding the stresses/deformations, thus neglectable. ThatÔÇÖs why I said that they are exactly the same. But they are not.
2.I will in most cases NOT leave the contact behaviour to "Program Controlled" = "Auto-Asymmetric". I always prefer setting "Asymmetric" when working with MPC bonded contacts. The reason behind this is, by doing this, in most cases I can control how far the MPC constraints are spread on the contact faces and avoid overconstraints at neighbouring contacts. If you do not exactly know what I mean by that, just establish contact between two plane bodies. One needs to overlap the other. Solve twice for flipped contact/target. YouÔÇÖll notice that most of the time, if the larger face is set to contact, MPC constraints are built only within the surface of the smaller face , thus no overconstraining of neighbouring contacts. Here is a comparison: Larger Face = Contact VS Smaller Face = Contact
3. Thanks a lot for your effort & ideas why this might be occurring. I wish the developers could clear it up.I am thankful for any other ideas.
You are navigating away from the AIS Discovery experience