Constraint Manager

Leo Graywacz · Post by **Leo Graywacz** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 3:56PM

DanEpps wrote:
Leo Graywacz wrote:They sure aren't acting like it.
Sure they were...the results were variable weren't they?

Sure if unpredictable and variable have the same meaning.

Leo Graywacz · Post by **Leo Graywacz** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 4:16PM

Here is the cabinet I'm trying to get to work in the constraints manager if anyone else wants to give it a shot.

Daniel Vonderheide · Post by **Daniel Vonderheide** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 4:48PM

The H and the W are variables that are applied to the part as it sits on the screen in the constraint manager. Justin should be posting the answer to the issue soon.

Daniel Vonderheide · Post by **Daniel Vonderheide** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 5:04PM

Well, Justin must of went home for the day

, luckily I have the cabinet. Here you go.

DanEpps · Post by **DanEpps** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 5:42PM

So, the constraints have to be relative to the orientation of the part in the constraint manager and not relative to the cabinet?

Daniel Vonderheide · Post by **Daniel Vonderheide** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 5:50PM

DanEpps wrote:So, the constraints have to be relative to the orientation of the part in the constraint manager and not relative to the cabinet?

Yep. This is how I've always understood it and it always seems to work for me.

DanEpps · Post by **DanEpps** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 6:26PM

Maybe this is one of the reasons I don't like the constraint manager

Leo and I both were trying our best to constrain the WIDTH of the part to the WIDTH of the cabinet as one would look at the part ON the cabinet.

That area could be a little more intuitive when it comes to the help for formulas. It just doesn't explain it at all.

Leo Graywacz · Post by **Leo Graywacz** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 7:56PM

DanEpps wrote:Maybe this is one of the reasons I don't like the constraint manager

Leo and I both were trying our best to constrain the WIDTH of the part to the WIDTH of the cabinet as one would look at the part ON the cabinet.

That area could be a little more intuitive when it comes to the help for formulas. It just doesn't explain it at all.

I tried to use the Height and kept getting zero height. So to use this in the constraint he needed to use the width constrainer and input a height dimension. I understand where you got the 2.333 from (7/3=2.333) but I don't understand the relationship of h/3. Is it that vertical is height and horizontal is width? I think I am getting it. So if I used the formula (h-7)/3 would it still work. Or does the software not understand multi level mathematics? Oh BTW, THANK YOU

Leo Graywacz · Post by **Leo Graywacz** » Thu, Feb 22 2007, 8:22PM

OK I messed around with it some and went back to my original formula with a modification to make it work. Instead of (h-7)/3 I made it into .333*(h-7) which shows up as .333(h-7) but still works the same as your h/3-2.33 which is much less intuitive. I think one of the problems I was having is that I constrained all three arcs instead of two and assuming the 3rd arc would fall in place.

DanEpps · Post by **DanEpps** » Fri, Feb 23 2007, 7:06AM

You'd better be careful Leo, or you'll end up as confused as I am.

Width and height are relative to how the part is displayed in the constraint manager. I thought it was relative to the cabinet.

None of the documentation makes this clear.

Oh, and on your earlier comment \"Wow, to think I might be able to teach a guru something\", libraries are filled with stuff I don't know.

I learn every day from everyone I come into contact with. The best teacher is not necessarily a \"guru\", but one who is looking for the answer to a problem. In looking for the answer I in turn learn from it.

Thermwood / eCabinet Systems

Constraint Manager

Re:

Re:

Re: