« Merger Shock! IMSI Changes to Broadcaster | Main | kidz delight Mini-max »

Aug 10, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c19df53ef00d8348772cc69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Drawing Triangles Given Lengths of 3 Sides:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

lev

Google is your friend.

http://ostermiller.org/calc/triangle.html

R.K. McSwain

Sounds like a 'distance-distance intersection' COGO problem, which always produces zero or two possibilities.

To me, this is an excellent example of why "bog-standard" CAD systems are so limited, and why parametric CAD systems have so much more power.

In a parametric CAD system, you just draw a rough triangle, then apply a dimension constraint to each side and set the appropriate length, and apply an angle measurement to each corner. (You may need to tell the system the corner angle measurements are "reference dimensions", because you will be over-constraining the triangle if you try to set three side lengths AND 3 corner angles).

Now you can edit any or all of the applied dimensions and immediately get a regenerated triangle with all dimensions and angles instantly and accurately updated - no erasing and re-drawing required. The same principles will work with any level of complexity of figure which you are drawing, and the benefits of parametric modelling grow as the complexity increases.

So tell me - why DO people persist with non-parametric CAD systems, when there are alternatives which are so much more powerful?

Evan Yares

It would have been easier to draw using a line and two circles.

Phil Kreiker once mentioned to me that he didn't even teach the AutoCAD Arc commands in his classes at the Colorado School of Mines. It's faster to draw circles and trim them.

In any case, the reason it's easier to draw circles than arcs is that there are a lot of different ways to draw arcs.

AutoCAD at least, circles are represented by a center and radius, with arcs having an additional starting and ending angle.

I actually had to check this... and was a little mystifed by it. I expected AutoCAD to store at least a full coordinate for the first point, and possibly an included angle -- but no.

The problem here is that, for shallow arcs (with numerically high radii) the calculation of the starting and ending angles is subject to transcendental math errors. This is not a good thing. If I were a surveyor, I'd be more than a little nervous about this.

Interestingly, polyarcs do store starting and ending points, so they are a much better choice when you need to draw with high precision. Unfortunately, they're not even as easy to use as regular arcs.

plus.google.com/113428280210146719621

Triangle by sides 102 102 90 can be draw or solve like this:

http://www.hackmath.net/en/calculator/triangle-calculator?what=&a=102&b=102&c=90&submit=Solve

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Thank you for visiting!

Translate

Search This Blog


  •  

Advertisements