Good afternoon! I've been working with a couple different users lately who have had issues with components in assemblies NOT being able to move and one of the issues is that it is difficult to see when components are grounded. One that was really perplexing was a pipe fitting, because the assembly browser icon didn't show the push pin on it. Therefore, we had to move the cursor across a series of components before we discovered that one of them was grounded. If the pipe fitting had been inside of a tank or enclosure, we probably would never have found it and determined it was grounded.
What I would like to see is a tool to show all grounded components, perhaps something similar to the graphical glyph feedback of the "Show Sick Constraints" tool. That way, instead of having to comb through many rows of the assembly browser, we could quickly identify grounded components. I don't have time to knock out any graphics, but if anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Hope all is well and have a most blessed day!
Download Grounded Cracked
Download 🔥 https://shoxet.com/2yGaNZ 🔥
I run into this with tube assemblies as well. Having a bunch of parts organized across many folders makes it difficult to look through and find grounded components. I often ground something temporarily so the assembly doesn't explode and forget to unground it. I know this is my fault, but being able to search for grounded components would be a welcome addition.
I can't think of more basic functionality than identifying components that are grounded with ease. Instead, with the release of 2022, grounded components are even harder to see. Can we please have something that gives the user an easy way to fin grounded components?!
My assemblies tend to be very large. I also use constraints on almost every component. I often ground a component to prevent it from moving while I constrain other components. This presents another problem, especially when I modify an older assembly to change it's size. Because of those three or four 'hidden' grounded components, my assembly can't change.
While we're on it, it would also be nice to be able to quickly identify modified constraints that might be used for things like positional reps. As it is, I have to sometimes scroll through hundreds of constraints looking for one that has an override. The find functionality has no filter for such an animal. Sorry, I know a little off-topic, but kinda falls into the same category.
I suppose you prefer to have the selection & search command to get all the grounded components within an assembly, and then can consider to take the downstream workflow here. Does it make sense for you?
Yes Yijiang.Cai,
I think, something like that, would be very nice, if I understand you right.
The visual browser icon does help some, but even with that added in Inventor 2023.2, it can be difficult to find the grounded part, there makes it impossible to move things around in a big assembly with a lot of parts, as that small pin in the tree easily can be overlooked when scrolling through several pages of parts.
So it would be very nice, if we could just search for "Grounded" and it then would show all grounded parts, like it shows all parts there contains "45deg" in the attached picture, where I have searched for "45deg"
It could also be a great help, if grounded parts could be shown more clearly, maybe something like the second grounded part in the picture:
@MBPedersen_DK many thanks for the quick feedback! If possible, can we only search the first level of components in the assembly? If we want to search all instances within assembly, it may cause the performance issue on searching. Anyway it has been tracked as [INVGEN-68740]. Thanks!
I think everyone is aware of the icon, kristjan. The issue, I'm sure, is that it is hard to identify when scrolling through the model tree containing numerous other parts. The little grey pin doesn't do a lot to stand out from everything else and it makes it difficult to identify those components. Also, there is no way to search for those components.
Below is an overview of the design, methodology, sampling, and coding processes that I use in my research. Before we jump in, I want to acknowledge Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss for their pioneering work in qualitative research and for developing grounded theory methodology. And, to Dr. Glaser, who was willing to commute from California to serve as the methodologist on my dissertation committee at the University of Houston: You literally changed the way I see the world.
In chemistry, especially thermodynamics, if you have an element or property that is too volatile to measure, you often have to rely on indirect measurement. You measure the property by combining and reducing related, less volatile compounds until those relationships and manipulations reveal a measurement of your original property. My idea was to learn more about shame and scarcity by exploring what exists in their absence.
Theoretical sampling, the process of data collection that allows for the generation of theory, was the primary sampling method that I used in this study. When using theoretical sampling, the researcher simultaneously collects, codes, and analyzes data and uses this ongoing process to determine what data to collect next and where to find them. In line with theoretical sampling, I selected participants based on the analysis and coding interviews and secondary data.
One important tenet of grounded theory is the idea that researchers should not assume the relevance of identity data, including race, age, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ability. Although the relevance of these variables was not assumed, purposive sampling (intentionally sampling across identity data) was used with theoretical sampling to ensure that a diverse group of participants were interviewed. At certain points during my research, identity data indeed emerged as relevant, and in these cases purposive sampling continued to inform the theoretical sample. In categories where identity did not emerge as relevant, theoretical sampling was used exclusively.
Although grounded- theory methodology often yields theoretical saturation (the point at which no new conceptual insights are generated and the researcher has provided repeated evidence for his or her conceptual categories) with far fewer than my total 1,280 participants, three interrelated theories emerged with multiple core categories and numerous properties informing each category. The nuanced and complex nature of shame resilience, Wholeheartedness, and vulnerability necessitated the large sample size.
In addition to the 1,280 participant interviews, I analyzed field notes that I had taken on sensitizing literature, conversations with content experts, and field notes from my meetings with graduate students who conducted participant interviews and assisted with the literature analysis. Additionally, I recorded and coded field notes on the experience of taking approximately 400 master and doctoral social-worker students through my graduate course on shame, vulnerability, and empathy, and training an estimated 15,000 mental health and addiction professionals.
I also coded over 3,500 pieces of secondary data. These include clinical case studies and case notes, letters, and journal pages. In total, I coded approximately 11,000 incidents (phrases and sentences from the original field notes) using the constant comparative method (line- by- line analysis). I did all of this coding manually, as software is not recommended in Glaserian-grounded theory.
I collected all of the data with the exception of 215 participant interviews that were conducted by graduate social-work students working under my direction. In order to ensure inter-rater reliability, I trained all research assistants and I coded and analyzed all of their field notes.
Approximately half of the interviews were individual meetings and the other half happened in dyads, triads, and groups. Interview times ranged from forty-five minutes to three hours, with an average of approximately sixty minutes. Adjusted conversational interviewing was utilized because it is regarded as the most effective grounded theory approach to interviewing.
As I look back on this journey, I realize the deep truth in the quote I shared at the beginning. There really is no path. Because the research participants had the courage to share their stories, experiences, and wisdom, I forged a path that defined my career and my life. When I first realized and resented the importance of embracing vulnerability and living a Wholehearted life, I would tell people that I was hijacked by my own data. Now, I know that I was rescued by it.
This is the code that takes care of the jumping, falling and gravity. cc in this code block is the CharacterController component. If the character already is grounded and the jump key was not pressed, the vertical speed will remain zero; if he is not grounded, then gravity is applied in the y direction.
The problem is that the isGrounded value constantly fluctuates, and the Debug.Log line fluctuates between yes and no, so when I use the isGrounded condition for playing the footsteps sound, the sound randomly stops and starts again, even though I am constantly just walking straight on a simple smooth plane.
I am not concerned about the fact that isGrounded is fluctuating and that it's incorrect, because in gameplay that is not noticable. I am only worried about how to constantly play the footsteps sound while the character is walking, and not jumping, and not falling. As far as my concerns go, this may be solved by actually fixing the fluctuation or another workaround; I would be happy with either.
I have meet similar circumstances developing character movement with PhysX engine. To be more precisely, my character was unabled to move downstairs. Instead of it he always trying to jump over steps and go freefall. And his isGrounded was fluctuating on seemingly flat surface as well. 152ee80cbc
globotipo font family download
3am questions pdf free download