How can this be possible???

[Uncle_Hairball]

How can it be possible that a single constraint overconstrains a component??? How can a component with ZERO constraints be limited to moving in only one axis??? GAHHHH!!!!! I HATE SOLIDWORKS!!!

[AlexLachance]

Is the component fixed?

[Glenn Schroeder]

Ctrl+Q can be your friend.

[Uncle_Hairball]

Is the component fixed?

Nope

[Uncle_Hairball]

Ctrl+Q can be your friend.

Yes, but not this time. Yet another case where SW required delete and start over.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Yes, but not this time. Yet another case where SW required delete and start over.

That would have been my next suggestion.

[Damo]

Yes, but not this time. Yet another case where SW required delete and start over.

I hate this about SW. Hate it with every fibre of my being.

It reminds me of this...

Except, with SW and scenarios like this because it fails, you are required to do the exact same thing again to acheive the desired result.

[Ronan1961]

Ctrl+Q can be your friend.

Ctrl+Shift+Q might help if there are configurations

[JSculley]

Are you using flexible subassemblies?

[AlexLachance]

Yes, but not this time. Yet another case where SW required delete and start over.

Was the component part of a symetry or a pattern? If so, an instance from either could have been the one "locking" it in place.

[Uncle_Hairball]

Are you using flexible subassemblies?

Nope

[Uncle_Hairball]

Was the component part of a symmetry or a pattern? If so, an instance from either could have been the one "locking" it in place.

Hmmm... wish I could check because that's a realistic possibility. Too bad I already fixed it. Delete and reconstruct.

[AlexLachance]

Hmmm... wish I could check because that's a realistic possibility. Too bad I already fixed it. Delete and reconstruct.

When I'm getting some weird behavior like that in an assembly, I bring the bar back up to remove the patterns and mirrors.

It's also a habit I have which helps in keeping assemblies lighter. I've seen a lot of people not bother with mating to the original component and then have trouble with their assemblies so I've incorporated it in my workflow for large assemblies.

[CarrieIves]

We don't always get mates deleted when components are deleted. I have found that sometimes those will come back if a component was deleted and then added back to the assembly. So, I put a component in (forgetting that it had been in that assembly weeks ago) and try to add new constraints to put it where I think it should be. It will yell because it has unsupressed the mates that had been suppressed when I deleted the component.

Are there external references that could be driving this?

[mp3-250]

We don't always get mates deleted when components are deleted. I have found that sometimes those will come back if a component was deleted and then added back to the assembly. So, I put a component in (forgetting that it had been in that assembly weeks ago) and try to add new constraints to put it where I think it should be. It will yell because it has unsupressed the mates that had been suppressed when I deleted the component.

Are there external references that could be driving this?

Mates does not get deleted if you dismiss the delete confirmation dialog with delete children disabled.
In addition, under system option-error messages there is a checkbox to dismiss missing mates errors in the tree and they are brushed under the rug making the assy slow as those mates are calculated before being suppressed.

missing mates are errors and should not be dismissed.

[Uncle_Hairball]

I think Alex was right. I just had the same thing happen again and it turned out there were mates on both ends of a mirror.

Thanks everyone for the helpful suggestions!

[Glenn Schroeder]

I think Alex was right. I just had the same thing happen again and it turned out there were mates on both ends of a mirror.

Thanks everyone for the helpful suggestions!

Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I try to avoid mating to components brought in with a pattern or mirror.

[DavidWS]

I think Alex was right. I just had the same thing happen again and it turned out there were mates on both ends of a mirror.

Thanks everyone for the helpful suggestions!

That was what I was about to suggest as it happened to me in a large assy with mirrored parts... the mates were added to the mirrored parts instead of the parents... it's easy to make this mistake, especially when you have a very symmetrical assy and don't specifically check where in the tree you're working while selecting components in the graphics area for mating.

One help I've found is to color the key parent parts at the assy level, OR live by the rule of always working in a specific quadrant for symmetric assemblies.

[JSculley]

One help I've found is to color the key parent parts at the assy level, OR live by the rule of always working in a specific quadrant for symmetric assemblies.

You call also roll the feature tree back above all the patterns/mirrors so they are invisible and unavailable for mates. Out of sight, out of mind.

[Glenn Schroeder]

You call also roll the feature tree back above all the patterns/mirrors so they are invisible and unavailable for mates. Out of sight, out of mind.

That's what I usually do.