- Marcar como nuevo
- Favorito
- Suscribir
- Silenciar
- Suscribirse a un feed RSS
- Resaltar
- Imprimir
- Denunciar
@Anonymous wrote:
Yes thank you! Wrote it as a condition but it worked all the same. Cheers!
And ignore the fuzz on that clips now I'm seeing how precise I can get it
That doesn't look right to me. First condition: their directions are close enough to equal -- fine. Second condition: the direction to be compared is close enough to pi no matter what the reference direction is! Third condition: the direction to be compared is close enough to 0 no matter what the reference direction is! You would get things considered parallel even with wildly different directions, as long as the 'comangle' line is horizontal. I assume that's not what you want, but that you need to include consideration of both the reference and compared directions within each condition.
As to the precision: Just use scientific notation, instead of all those strung-out zeros. 0.001 can be expressed as 1e-3 [the e is for the exponent on 10, so it = 1 x 10 to the minus-3rd power, or 1 divided by 10 to the 3rd power], and you can go with 1e-12 as in my earlier suggestion [equivalent to your initial decimal], and crank that up to 1e-13, 1e-14, etc. But understand what you're asking: 1e-14 in radians is one hundred-trillionth of a radian, which [if my calculation is right] in degress/minutes/seconds comes to roughly a five-hundred-millionth of an arc second. At some point it becomes meaningless.... An arc through that sweep angle with a radius of 1000 drawing units is about one hundred-billionth of a drawing unit long. And AutoCAD can keep track of only 16 significant figures, so you'll soon hit the limit of its ability to distinguish, and may as well leave out the fuzz factor entirely, and just ask for "exact" equality -- that's your maximum precision.