Teddy Variables

SOFiSTiK Teddy
1

Hi everyone,

I’d like to change a few feature of a model created in SofiPlus using Teddy, but I’m encountering problems with variables.

When run the file obtained from export.dat I can’t see the variations in the sectional shape I set in Sofiplus. Not even if I merge it with the one with tasks, as indicated online. Also, reading the AQUA script for each interpolated section I see that variables have the correct value. Did anyone had this problem before and know how to fix it?

Thank you in advance,
Giorgia

Here is a link to the script
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r7OBUWXZMElAqruJ7h7rG5SkML12ph_u/view?usp=sharing

2

Hello. If you attach your script, it will be easier for people to help you.

1 Like
4

Thank you for the advice, modified the post with a sample script.

5

I usually don’t use parameterized sections, but to understand your problem, I created a small example. A very strange thing is that the structure exported from SOFiPLUS gives one result, but if you export it to a .dat script and run it, you get a different result. This is beyond my understanding.
Perhaps someone more experienced will clarify the situation, or something is wrong with the export

6

It surprised me as well, maybe some overwriting? But I can’t find it.
Anyway, thank you for your attempt Kirill. I hope more experienced users will help.

7

Export function can be quite shaky at times. I wouldn’t trust it.

In the example below:

  • a spring connection is defined in global directions with sofiplus -> meshed etc (picture 1)
  • export function for some reason adds KR ‘LOCZ’ to the definition which overrides the vector definition -> (picture 2)

I would either:

  • Stick to sofiplus entirely (maybe use sys rest in sofimsha/sofimshc to add some items)
  • Use sofiplus to generate a starting point to continue coding from (preferred imho)

testspring20.sofistik (21.3 KB)
testspring20.dwg (47.0 KB)
testspring20_exp.dat (1.7 KB)

testspring20
testspring201474×901 79.3 KB

testspring20_exp
testspring20_exp1474×901 71.4 KB

1 Like
8

Hi sfr! Thank you for your advice and time. I see now, I’ll try to see if a similar lock is being set up.
I agree with you, coding would be best, as for the analyses I need to do I can’t work directly.
Do you think that using Rhino and GH could present similar problems or is the integration smoother so that it is worth spending more time on geometry setting there?
Anyway, thank you again,
Giorgia

9

I think I solved the problem, with the command INTE directly :slight_smile: