Angle/Plane of connections 

I understand f0 will partialy resolve this but I would like to hear
comments to alternative solutions.

One annoying factor for me is the inability in f1 to specify that two
sticks can move relative to each other at multiple angles. While (X,X)
describes the angles the two sticks occupy within the container () this
is only applicable to the plane the () exists in.

For a real life example I am thinking of a ball and socket joint like a
shoulder with many muscles attached to the torso frame and limb allowing
the attached limb to move in many directions at once. Even the base of
an insect leg has several muscles attached in various angles. Framsticks
look to have freedom of movement in all directions provided a force is
active. But (X[|],X[|],X[|]) means all muscles move on the same plane
and using RX[|] to rotate the stick doesn’t change the direction of
force on the stick. The stick is rotated but not the muscle so the force
is applied in the same direction. Using @ has a similar effect.

There is no feature to further describe additional angles on alternate
planes. Perhaps axial muscle types such as Z|, Z@, X|, X@, Y|, Y@ ?
But again...Cartesian planes are just one solution.

Of course three-dimensional coordinates of the muscle attachment points
along the stick would really be neat, but that would change the focus of
the Framsticks application. Nonetheless, I find the singular plane of
operation to be very limiting.

Comments from other designers?

-zac

Forums: 

Joint constraints would be great to.

Zac Elston wrote in message
news:39B7B7A6.1BD7AD11@aol.com...
> I understand f0 will partialy resolve this but I would like to hear
> comments to alternative solutions.
>
> One annoying factor for me is the inability in f1 to specify that two
> sticks can move relative to each other at multiple angles. While (X,X)
> describes the angles the two sticks occupy within the container () this
> is only applicable to the plane the () exists in.
>
> For a real life example I am thinking of a ball and socket joint like a
> shoulder with many muscles attached to the torso frame and limb allowing
> the attached limb to move in many directions at once. Even the base of
> an insect leg has several muscles attached in various angles. Framsticks
> look to have freedom of movement in all directions provided a force is
> active. But (X[|],X[|],X[|]) means all muscles move on the same plane
> and using RX[|] to rotate the stick doesn't change the direction of
> force on the stick. The stick is rotated but not the muscle so the force
> is applied in the same direction. Using @ has a similar effect.
>
> There is no feature to further describe additional angles on alternate
> planes. Perhaps axial muscle types such as Z|, Z@, X|, X@, Y|, Y@ ?
> But again...Cartesian planes are just one solution.
>
> Of course three-dimensional coordinates of the muscle attachment points
> along the stick would really be neat, but that would change the focus of
> the Framsticks application. Nonetheless, I find the singular plane of
> operation to be very limiting.
>
> Comments from other designers?
>
> -zac
>