Can you fully define CAD geometry with only 1 mate?

[@AbyssalReverberations]

It's good to see you recording again!

[@JamesDeBono]

Thanks man! still a bit tricky in this temporary apartment. I want to stream as well but this place is on the bottom tier internet plan so it's not ideal 😅 hopefully moving soon

[@RKisBae]

Any single surface that's not a revolved feature can fully lock in 1, i think

[@JamesDeBono]

Yes you can use lock but that's not a geometric mate really

[@RKisBae]

@@JamesDeBono Here I'm using "lock" interchangeably with "fully mated". Are you using "lock" as in an anchor mate?
To my first comment I should add: ... and as long as it's not a plane or an orthogonally extruded surface by 2d curve. Those two plus the revolved surface make this a decent definition of a fully interlockable surface mate. But then there's also helical sweeps, that wouldn't fully mate in one. There might be a few other cases I cant imagine at the moment.

[@tadilaco]

Would a counter sunk n-face pyramid polygon mate and be constrained by a single face?
Meaning, instead of a cone like your example, a pyramid.

[@JamesDeBono]

I guess if it's a pyramid then it would be multiple faces right? So it would need multiple mates

[@tadilaco]

@@JamesDeBono oh is that how it works? Interesting 🤔

[@JamesDeBono]

@@tadilaco Yeah I should have mentioned that the objects do not collide. They can go through each other. So if you only mated one face of the pyramid they could still slide through each other

[@morethejamesx39]

I guess in general the surface needs to have normals with components in all 3 axes (position) and cannot be a revolution surface (rotation)

[@JamesDeBono]

Perfectly circular or conical revolved surfaces will work with a concentric mate!