hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 62 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

What is the difference between Primitives and General constraint?

vaibhavd
I was reading one old ADAMS tutorial where the instructor used General constraints. At that time inline primitives option was not available. Now both options are available in the new version. It makes me confused to differentiate between them. Kindly share your knowledge on the same.
 
Parents
  • 0
    Hi, whoever wrote that manual is wrong. Joint primitives has always been around, at least since well before I started using Adams in 1991. General constraints on the other hand are fairly new, only been around for a few years and only in the C++ solver. The Fortran solver that far outdates the C++ solver still don't have a GCON statement and never will.
     
    Originally all joints and joint primitives were implemented with their own set of equations. Joints were defined as constraints that had a real world equivalent such as a hinge (revolute joint) or slider (translational joint) while joint primitives simply removed DOF from the system. But all of them were holonomic.
    Comes the C++ solver and new opportunities sometime around year 2000 (and the first releases were not even that stable). All new programming. And instead of writing each joint and jprim with their own set of equations, the GCON was defined. And all joints and jprims could now be defined in terms of a GCON. This happens "behind the veil" from the user standpoint. You never see this.
    But then the GCON was made available to the user as well. This was a big thing. Not because of that you now could use that instead of using joints, but because it allowed you to define non-holonomic constraints. And also get around some of the limitations of a couplers and motions.
     
Reply
  • 0
    Hi, whoever wrote that manual is wrong. Joint primitives has always been around, at least since well before I started using Adams in 1991. General constraints on the other hand are fairly new, only been around for a few years and only in the C++ solver. The Fortran solver that far outdates the C++ solver still don't have a GCON statement and never will.
     
    Originally all joints and joint primitives were implemented with their own set of equations. Joints were defined as constraints that had a real world equivalent such as a hinge (revolute joint) or slider (translational joint) while joint primitives simply removed DOF from the system. But all of them were holonomic.
    Comes the C++ solver and new opportunities sometime around year 2000 (and the first releases were not even that stable). All new programming. And instead of writing each joint and jprim with their own set of equations, the GCON was defined. And all joints and jprims could now be defined in terms of a GCON. This happens "behind the veil" from the user standpoint. You never see this.
    But then the GCON was made available to the user as well. This was a big thing. Not because of that you now could use that instead of using joints, but because it allowed you to define non-holonomic constraints. And also get around some of the limitations of a couplers and motions.
     
Children
No Data
© 2025 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement