Stud.io - Conundrum or Missing Feature?

[CrankyCraig]

This follows from a discussion in the Technic and Model Team section of Eurobricks, where up to this point we've been unable to find a simple solution to this conundrum, if one even exists. For those of you well versed in Stud.io (or possibly other digital design programs), I'm looking for the easiest solution possible.

As a newcommer to Stud.io/all-things-digital-design I'm trying to recreate the Class 1 Unlimited Buggy by Agrof - a great MOC for anyone interested.

Firstly, for reference, here's the MOC:

 

What you're looking at below is the rear of the buggy, with the 2 independent rear swing arms. Circled in green are a couple of mods not in the instructions; 2 further supporting arms which attach to the swingarms and reduce lateral movement. Then, later in the build, 9.5L Hard Shocks connect these swingarms to the body (using part 32069).

 

Here's roughly how the supporting arms attach to the swingarm.

Obviously, there are a lot of parts here that need to intersect at the correct angles, and to solve this myriad of variation by trial/error is a time consuming exercise when compared to the few seconds it takes to achieve this with actual bricks. 

Simply put, is there an easier way to achieve this digitally?

[SylvainLS]

7 minutes ago, CrankyCraig said:

Simply put, is there an easier way to achieve this digitally?

Trigonometry, with pen and paper or a geometry programme….

[Mylenium]

4 hours ago, CrankyCraig said:

Simply put, is there an easier way to achieve this digitally?

Nope. Pretty much all current brick CAD programs are simply too dumb for even such simple stuff.

Mylenium

[roland]

On 5/16/2020 at 5:46 PM, Mylenium said:

Nope. Pretty much all current brick CAD programs are simply too dumb for even such simple stuff.

challenge accepted :)

[Mylenium]

12 hours ago, roland said:

challenge accepted :)

...but don't you think having to create dummy elements and relying on alignment functions is still kind of stupid and highly inefficient? Imagine you had to work this way constructing a machine in the real world and had to do it thousands of times...

Mylenium

Edited May 18, 2020 by Mylenium

[supertruper1988]

On 5/17/2020 at 11:56 PM, Mylenium said:

...but don't you think having to create dummy elements and relying on alignment functions is still kind of stupid and highly inefficient? Imagine you had to work this way constructing a machine in the real world and had to do it thousands of times...

Mylenium

You dont have to do it that way because the super computer in your head does all the math for you. When you have a computer program, you have to give it all the instructions and use cases and error handling. Its not stupid, its great that a free program has some tools to help you use your brain to get it lined up. 

[SylvainLS]

17 minutes ago, supertruper1988 said:

because the super computer in your head does all the math for you.

Er, no, it’s the super computer that is the physical world that forces you, through its physical laws, to do it the correct way.  The falling apple doesn’t know the laws of physics and doesn’t compute its way with mathematics, it just falls, and it bounces when another object is in the way.

In the physical world, you actually do it by trial and error.  You’re just guided by the laws of physics and your many senses and you can move several parts in several ways at the same time.  In the simulation that a CAD is, you practically have only one sense: vision, and you can only move or rotate one piece (or one fixed group of pieces) at a time, so trial and error is way more frustrating.

[supertruper1988]

Just now, SylvainLS said:

Er, no, it’s the super computer that is the physical world that forces you, through its physical laws, to do it the correct way.  The falling apple doesn’t know the laws of physics and doesn’t compute its way with mathematics, it just falls, and it bounces when another object is in the way.

In the physical world, you actually do it by trial and error.  You’re just guided by the laws of physics and your many senses and you can move several parts in several ways at the same time.  In the simulation that a CAD is, you practically have only one sense: vision, and you can only move or rotate one piece (or one fixed group of pieces) at a time, so trial and error is way more frustrating.

Yes this is correct. I was leaning more on the intuition part i guess. I know when I assemble things I can just know how its supposed to fit and then do it. A computer cant just know without being told, at least not yet 

[roland]

On 5/18/2020 at 7:56 AM, Mylenium said:

...but don't you think having to create dummy elements and relying on alignment functions is still kind of stupid and highly inefficient? Imagine you had to work this way constructing a machine in the real world and had to do it thousands of times...

All software is about using a collection of tools to get to some goal. If you need to do the same multiple times you make a new specialized tool for it or write a macro.

Also where is the fun in having software doing everything for you :)

[freakwave]

On 5/18/2020 at 7:56 AM, Mylenium said:

...but don't you think having to create dummy elements and relying on alignment functions is still kind of stupid and highly inefficient? Imagine you had to work this way constructing a machine in the real world and had to do it thousands of times...

Mylenium

You are always welcome to propose a better solution. Why is the solution inefficient? It looks to be the most efficient at the moment, and most importantly it solves the issue LDCad pretty quickly.