maybe @MikeTadros could shed some light on why DC tool seems to be frozen…
john
I have been tasked with building dynamic components under my current employment since sometime around 2011. I have found the most limiting factor creating dynamic components comes from the person responsible for creating it. Honestly, the creativity in nesting components, knowing how to build the model from the start, the ability to create working formulas and “do the math” is what ultimately gets the job done. The interface is just an interface. I do not feel limited by it at all, rather my own ability to solve problems, write algorithms, envision the relationships between geometry is the challenge. I like, and understand the current arrangement of dynamic components.
I get most frustrated with the constant refresh/redraw required to calculate my adjustments. Many times I fill the window with my complex mix of math and logic, writing what I dream the perfect solution to a problem, only to find it fail. I go back to the drawing board check all the math, rewrite all my formulas, then it hits me… It only works with a redraw that never happened. I have had to work iterators and redraws into so many extensions to make my models work correctly consistently, that this has become the real frustration.
I really wish there was a way to pass Model attributes on to dynamic components. It would be so nice to be able to edit a model attribute and have the dynamic models in my scene inherit the information. Sort of a global attribute that all the models in my scene could reference without having to call to another dynamic component that may or may not exist.
3 Likes
This might be because, when introduced, the ability to edit DC was a Pro only feature.
That distinguishment might not be needed, anymore.
There c(sh)ould be a tab in the Model Info…
1 Like
I once made a dynamic component of a kind of crane - work platform kind of vehicle.
The boom and arm could be made longer, the base could turn, the work platform could turn and widen.
I had it all worked out in my head with properly nested components it ought to have been possible. But it wasn’t. After a certain number of nestings, the deepest component would get strangely skewed and scaled.
In the end I did the math myself. Cos, sin, tan for the win, DC’s at a loss.
1 Like
Yes, I found much the same, even when trying things much simpler than you. Once you start nesting things, you get unpredictable results. At least, they may not actually be unpredictable if you really understand how things affect one another, but it’s a bit like trying to predict things using the Butterfly Effect.
1 Like
Well, no it wasn’t just slightly unpredictable but it was completely wrong. Something like, three added rotations around the X axis resulted in a scaling by a factor of 0.01 and a skew.
I think i did do some research at the time in to how things affected stuff. Basically the worst thing about DC’s is that “scale” is saved as an absolute size instead of a scaling factor relative to the definition of the component. The mirroring is instead somehow saved into the rotation. This mixes up the two properties quite horribly.
1 Like