Needed Devlopments in Constraints
- Thread starter Lew_Merrick
- Start date
-
- Tags
- constraints
Nick952
Senior Member
When I've had this sort of issue, I dimension the one part (usually the fixed element) with Alibres standard dimensioning tool, then double click (as if to edit the dimension) and RMB to copy the Alibre Generated Dimension, exit the dimension, then Paste the copied dimension where required.
This action appears to carry over any calculations/rounding etc, that Alibre has done to achieve the original dimension (for me at least).
This action appears to carry over any calculations/rounding etc, that Alibre has done to achieve the original dimension (for me at least).
bigseb
Alibre Super User
Again, am I missing something here? A) You aren't calculating anything before hand, you are simply using the equation editor to work out a value to avoid the rounding issue. B) If two holes don't align because the distance aren't the same then use a different constraint, or use the same distance. Surely you're not expecting the software to constrain two unsconstrainable features...
How is that even possible? Perhaps you could upload your part and let a fresh pair of eyes have a look...
So there is a method that works but you don't want to use it because 'it is wrong'...
Because there is a method that works. This constraint you suggest is basically an 'allow this error' constraint. To be honest I would prefer Alibre fix other issues first.
JST, this is in regards to your #2 post in this topic.
And if I'm understanding your question correctly I’m with you 100%.
This is how it worked In my previous (automotive) world. We worked in either 2 or 3 decimal places. When I worked part numbers were hard to get & every part number had to be justified. In fact, every part number had 2 numbers. An internal PNC (Part Number Control) number and a distinct real part number. To get a number required going to the Part Number Control Department and looking thru their manuals for a similar number that would work. Their system was similar to a library’s index system.
That being said, anytime you work with resultant angle dimensions things get messed up.
Attached are an asm file showing a bent L brkt and a flat brkt.
Whether I had an existing flat brkt or need a new one it would have been designed at 14.000 and not at 13.965.
And if I'm understanding your question correctly I’m with you 100%.
This is how it worked In my previous (automotive) world. We worked in either 2 or 3 decimal places. When I worked part numbers were hard to get & every part number had to be justified. In fact, every part number had 2 numbers. An internal PNC (Part Number Control) number and a distinct real part number. To get a number required going to the Part Number Control Department and looking thru their manuals for a similar number that would work. Their system was similar to a library’s index system.
That being said, anytime you work with resultant angle dimensions things get messed up.
Attached are an asm file showing a bent L brkt and a flat brkt.
Whether I had an existing flat brkt or need a new one it would have been designed at 14.000 and not at 13.965.
simonb65
Alibre Super User
Am I missing something here, are the parts being designed in isolation and driven by 'pre calculated theoretical measurements' or are connecting/bracing parts being designed using the others holes as reference figures? Surly, using the latter approach, the holes will always perfectly align as they are derived (driven) from one another!!! I'm refering to comment #4 in this thread, which seems to have set the tone for all of this.
I'm very confused as to where this thread is going and beginning to think that the aproach to the problem is all wrong! Sorry!
JST
Alibre Super User
Either way the situation is the same. The difference in measurement is undetectable because it seems to be beyond 6 decimals.
So you can measure the "actual" distance, put in THAT as the distance between holes or other features, and they STILL do not line up.
if you "set" the distance, generally that pushes the misalignment off onto several other parts, which ends up multiplying the problems.
If you do a WORKAROUND, by substituting a different constraint, the result is not the same, and the assembly is not constrained the same way. It may explode into a mess. The basic problem does not go away, it just gets hidden, swept under the rug.
The final approach, which I have not tried, is to put in one hole, line up the part, and "project to sketch" the other. That I THINK has actually failed in the past, but logically it should not fail.
While that might work, it does have problems, because if you re-use the part models, the next structure may not have the same tiny differences, so you may be back where you started.
And all the while, you KNOW that there is absolutely no effect on the ability to construct the physical item. But in "model space", it refuses to line up and screams that you have "errors".
The issue is buried so far "down" in the number of decimals that it is stupid to even need to do these things. There is NO NEED for alignments to be evaluated at decimal places that are impossible to display or enter. And clearly impossible to maintain in production, since a degree or two C will change the part dimensions more than the supposed error magnitude.
The "tolerant constraint" is NOT JUST FOR THIS CASE..... But this is a very good application for it.
Last edited:
JST
Alibre Super User
sz0k30:
I am not exactly clear on what you wanted to show, since the examples came up with errors of things "not found". A package file works better.
But I suspect that you are on the same track here.
The angular dimension, will almost never come out to be even. If you force it to be a reasonable number, that pushes the errors off onto other things.
If you have existing parts, then there may be a tiny difference in the model, or even a known difference that is within tolerance.... And either case "blows up" the model of the assembly, because the model must be exact to the uttermost decimal or things fail with errors and red all over the "design explorer".
Where the dissenters are running off the rails is that they come from work where part numbers are no big deal, and the most important thing is exactness and design trails. If the part does not fit in their world, design one that does. Spend lots of time analyzing the fits until you know everything there is to be known.
In my world, the fits will be assessed by a husky steelworker who solves alignment problems with a spud wrench and a hammer. The guys in the shop lay out steel with a tape, and anything much under 1/32" is pretty much not messed with. Maybe they nudge the part a hair before they punch the hole. These highfalutin' ideas about complete analysis etc have no place, the drawings are needed by 4PM.
The error of the dissenters is in viewing CAD as merely a documentation tool. "Get your ducks in a row first, and then draw the parts to your paper numbers". That is one valid use, certainly.
But ANOTHER valid use is to work off the rough drawings, putting the beams on the required centers, etc, and then setting the clips in place and FINDING OUT where the holes need to be, and what the length should be. It is a REALLY GREAT design tool.
That is a far faster way, and for loose tolerance operations like general steel structure work, it is both fast and effective. The problem comes when the software is oriented toward minute exactness, and has literally "zero tolerance" for ANY sort of error.
Which brings up the idea of the "tolerant constraint". It's no sort of "dumbing down", instead it is an optional ability to tolerate a settable amount of misalignment. Literally putting the designed "tolerance range" into the model.
It would be extremely useful as a design evaluation tool. Rather than the software screaming that the sky is falling when the 15th decimal place does not match, you would be able to set a tolerance range, and the error report would only occur if that was exceeded.
It's clearly not something to be used on every alignment (or whatever). Normally one would want to have things lined up in the ideal centered positions, but for certain situations, it would allow an alignment etc to be made, the model to be constrained, despite "within tolerance" variations. It would be a great item to have in the "toolbox".
I am not exactly clear on what you wanted to show, since the examples came up with errors of things "not found". A package file works better.
But I suspect that you are on the same track here.
The angular dimension, will almost never come out to be even. If you force it to be a reasonable number, that pushes the errors off onto other things.
If you have existing parts, then there may be a tiny difference in the model, or even a known difference that is within tolerance.... And either case "blows up" the model of the assembly, because the model must be exact to the uttermost decimal or things fail with errors and red all over the "design explorer".
Where the dissenters are running off the rails is that they come from work where part numbers are no big deal, and the most important thing is exactness and design trails. If the part does not fit in their world, design one that does. Spend lots of time analyzing the fits until you know everything there is to be known.
In my world, the fits will be assessed by a husky steelworker who solves alignment problems with a spud wrench and a hammer. The guys in the shop lay out steel with a tape, and anything much under 1/32" is pretty much not messed with. Maybe they nudge the part a hair before they punch the hole. These highfalutin' ideas about complete analysis etc have no place, the drawings are needed by 4PM.
The error of the dissenters is in viewing CAD as merely a documentation tool. "Get your ducks in a row first, and then draw the parts to your paper numbers". That is one valid use, certainly.
But ANOTHER valid use is to work off the rough drawings, putting the beams on the required centers, etc, and then setting the clips in place and FINDING OUT where the holes need to be, and what the length should be. It is a REALLY GREAT design tool.
That is a far faster way, and for loose tolerance operations like general steel structure work, it is both fast and effective. The problem comes when the software is oriented toward minute exactness, and has literally "zero tolerance" for ANY sort of error.
Which brings up the idea of the "tolerant constraint". It's no sort of "dumbing down", instead it is an optional ability to tolerate a settable amount of misalignment. Literally putting the designed "tolerance range" into the model.
It would be extremely useful as a design evaluation tool. Rather than the software screaming that the sky is falling when the 15th decimal place does not match, you would be able to set a tolerance range, and the error report would only occur if that was exceeded.
It's clearly not something to be used on every alignment (or whatever). Normally one would want to have things lined up in the ideal centered positions, but for certain situations, it would allow an alignment etc to be made, the model to be constrained, despite "within tolerance" variations. It would be a great item to have in the "toolbox".
JST
Alibre Super User
Here's a nice example of how Alibre hides the actual internally used dimensions from you:
You have fixed dimensions of 47.625" and 45.375 inches, at right angles. You want the diagonal between holes at the outer ends of lines which are at those fixed dimensions.
So you follow "best practices" and you calculate that number. It comes out to 65.78017368478134384865870690873...... (My calculator does not show any more, and the numbers are largely irrelevant anyway.)
Explain how you enter that number exactly into Alibre so as to get a proper alignment. (don't spend much time on it, the holes will not align)
Remember, the other distances are FIXED, you do not get to change them to suit your purposes.
here it is in physical form.
Take the attached assembly. Do a project to sketch to get the hole location for the diagonal piece. It should align. (But remember, that is NOT "best practice". If you wish to, or have to, do "best practice" as it has been defined here, you cannot get it to align.)
Measure the distance on the angle and the diagonal. They should be the same.
Now edit the projected sketch to put in the number you measure from the angle part as the distance between holes on the diagonal. The displayed numbers will still be identical, the same condition as before. Only now the part will no longer align.
Of course that is truly unacceptable. It should not happen.
You have fixed dimensions of 47.625" and 45.375 inches, at right angles. You want the diagonal between holes at the outer ends of lines which are at those fixed dimensions.
So you follow "best practices" and you calculate that number. It comes out to 65.78017368478134384865870690873...... (My calculator does not show any more, and the numbers are largely irrelevant anyway.)
Explain how you enter that number exactly into Alibre so as to get a proper alignment. (don't spend much time on it, the holes will not align)
Remember, the other distances are FIXED, you do not get to change them to suit your purposes.
here it is in physical form.
Take the attached assembly. Do a project to sketch to get the hole location for the diagonal piece. It should align. (But remember, that is NOT "best practice". If you wish to, or have to, do "best practice" as it has been defined here, you cannot get it to align.)
Measure the distance on the angle and the diagonal. They should be the same.
Now edit the projected sketch to put in the number you measure from the angle part as the distance between holes on the diagonal. The displayed numbers will still be identical, the same condition as before. Only now the part will no longer align.
Of course that is truly unacceptable. It should not happen.
I almost dare not post my approach, as JST will probably consider it unacceptable as a workaround. It does actually achieve much of what is requested, but using exiting functionality. I set hole spacing on the diagonal part to 65 3/4" (we are working to nearest 1/8"). A plane added to the hole is used to align with the 'mating' hole on the arm. There is a slight mismatch which can easily be measured to see if there is enough clearance in the holes to allow a bolt to pass through or not.
Could be refined further - maybe configs with holes at maximum and minimum separations based on likely marking/drilling errors.
Could be refined further - maybe configs with holes at maximum and minimum separations based on likely marking/drilling errors.
Lew_Merrick
Guest
JST -- My assertion is (1) that you are using Constraints improperly ans (2) what you are asking for is a new Tool that I am calling "Tolerance Interference Check" (for the nonce). This was first attempted (based on my experience) about 1980 with the Euclid modelling program. You had to define each Feature by Reference Datum and Tolerance. Then, in what was (then) an amazingly slow process (at the Assembly level) each Feature was "repositioned" to Maximum and Minimum positions and sizes with Interferences enumerated. The fact is that, if using True Position Dimensioning (and Tolerancing) the "analysis" gains you nothing.
Now, I admit that I would like to declare both Datums and Postional Tolerances at the Model level and have them "translated" into appropriate Tolerance Blocks at the Drawing level. I dount that most would agree with me on this approach (there being the Few and then there is Lew). The fact would be that (for me) the advantage would be that Model-defined Tolerances and Allowances would get "automagically" translated into Drawing Tolerances. That is what it would take to create the Tool you are asking for (and then would complain bitterly about having).
Now, I admit that I would like to declare both Datums and Postional Tolerances at the Model level and have them "translated" into appropriate Tolerance Blocks at the Drawing level. I dount that most would agree with me on this approach (there being the Few and then there is Lew). The fact would be that (for me) the advantage would be that Model-defined Tolerances and Allowances would get "automagically" translated into Drawing Tolerances. That is what it would take to create the Tool you are asking for (and then would complain bitterly about having).
JST
Alibre Super User
David, what you propose would work. And, yes, it is a workaround, but it is at least a reasonably effective one.
What I actually DO is one of two things....
1) Just visually line up (the misalignment is invisible) and anchor the part.
2) Align the part using one of the sides of the part plus an offset of the side-to-hole amount.
If I understand you, the second is equivalent to your approach. And, all three are, indeed, "workarounds". Two have the difficulty that they only align lengthwise, and do not actually constrain the part in its position. That is not always sufficient. Anchoring has the difficulty of turning constraints red in the explorer, which screams that the sky is falling, even though it is not.
I just want a constraint available that acknowledges the existence of tolerances, so that I can constrain a part that fits fine and is within-tolerance.
Lew:
I do not want it only as a check, but f I understand you, your idea is a useful tool.
I do not quite see the "using constraints improperly". If I understand the "best practices" folks, ANY use of an actual part-to-part constraint is "improper".
The ONLY acceptable use of constraints to some folks is to constrain to a complex network of reference planes, lines and points, upon which the parts are to be "hung" in a manner similar to reconstructing a crashed aircraft for examination (and it is a valid idea FOR SOME USES). Use to constrain to an actual part feature is regarded as beyond the pale, the mark of a clueless neophyte.
Not all usages require that approach. Some do.
The idea of the tolerant constraint brings real tolerances into the model, it is not some sort of cheat to make things appear to work. If anything, the workarounds cited above are the real "cheats", since they will "work" even in the case of serious errors.
Folks have commented to me off-line that they do not like Alibre for steel structure work for basically the reason I have mentioned. And, in some cases, that the tolerant constraint would make things easier to deal with, while not compromising the design.
What is "wrong" for your work may not be (I assert IS NOT) wrong for other work. Tools can be used or abused.
I personally assert that adding an axial plane to constrain to, etc (the aforementioned workarounds), is an abuse, one likely to result in parts that fail to fit.
I assert that, in contradistinction to the usage expressed in the last sentence, use of a tolerant constraint would be a very proper procedure,
I further assert that Alibre is evaluating constraints in an improper manner, and that it should restrict evaluation to the 6 visible decimal places. That applies a de-facto tolerance, but it is one I defy anyone to measure or observe reliably outside the calibration lab, in the real world. Even YOUR world.
What I actually DO is one of two things....
1) Just visually line up (the misalignment is invisible) and anchor the part.
2) Align the part using one of the sides of the part plus an offset of the side-to-hole amount.
If I understand you, the second is equivalent to your approach. And, all three are, indeed, "workarounds". Two have the difficulty that they only align lengthwise, and do not actually constrain the part in its position. That is not always sufficient. Anchoring has the difficulty of turning constraints red in the explorer, which screams that the sky is falling, even though it is not.
I just want a constraint available that acknowledges the existence of tolerances, so that I can constrain a part that fits fine and is within-tolerance.
Lew:
I do not want it only as a check, but f I understand you, your idea is a useful tool.
I do not quite see the "using constraints improperly". If I understand the "best practices" folks, ANY use of an actual part-to-part constraint is "improper".
The ONLY acceptable use of constraints to some folks is to constrain to a complex network of reference planes, lines and points, upon which the parts are to be "hung" in a manner similar to reconstructing a crashed aircraft for examination (and it is a valid idea FOR SOME USES). Use to constrain to an actual part feature is regarded as beyond the pale, the mark of a clueless neophyte.
Not all usages require that approach. Some do.
The idea of the tolerant constraint brings real tolerances into the model, it is not some sort of cheat to make things appear to work. If anything, the workarounds cited above are the real "cheats", since they will "work" even in the case of serious errors.
Folks have commented to me off-line that they do not like Alibre for steel structure work for basically the reason I have mentioned. And, in some cases, that the tolerant constraint would make things easier to deal with, while not compromising the design.
What is "wrong" for your work may not be (I assert IS NOT) wrong for other work. Tools can be used or abused.
I personally assert that adding an axial plane to constrain to, etc (the aforementioned workarounds), is an abuse, one likely to result in parts that fail to fit.
I assert that, in contradistinction to the usage expressed in the last sentence, use of a tolerant constraint would be a very proper procedure,
I further assert that Alibre is evaluating constraints in an improper manner, and that it should restrict evaluation to the 6 visible decimal places. That applies a de-facto tolerance, but it is one I defy anyone to measure or observe reliably outside the calibration lab, in the real world. Even YOUR world.
Lew_Merrick
Guest
JST [edited by mod] The fact is that, here in the U.S., tape measures only need to be accurate within 5/16 (.3125) inch per yard of measure! That is the current NIST regulation (created in 1994). [You and I have gone "roundy-round" on this several times now.] Assuming that something laid out with a tape measure can act as a Datum is an exercise in ignorance!
Last edited by a moderator:
JST
Alibre Super User
Lew:
I refer you to the following NIST link, at which you will find the full statement.
For lengths up to 6 feet, the tolerance on metal tapes is +- 1/32" (an accuracy of +- one part in 2300, or about .05% at 6 ft)
from there to 30 feet, the tolerance is 1/16".
Since that appears to be substantially different from your statements, I will ignore your statement as erroneous, merely noting that I do not recall discussing tape measures previously, and adding that the matter appears to be irrelevant to the point under discussion.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/wmd/pubs/2016/02/18/5-52-16-hb44-final.pdf
I refer you to the following NIST link, at which you will find the full statement.
For lengths up to 6 feet, the tolerance on metal tapes is +- 1/32" (an accuracy of +- one part in 2300, or about .05% at 6 ft)
from there to 30 feet, the tolerance is 1/16".
Since that appears to be substantially different from your statements, I will ignore your statement as erroneous, merely noting that I do not recall discussing tape measures previously, and adding that the matter appears to be irrelevant to the point under discussion.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/wmd/pubs/2016/02/18/5-52-16-hb44-final.pdf
Last edited:
Lew_Merrick
Guest
That is a handbook and not the legal definition or qualification! It is (almost) akin to Autodesk's use of Figures from a 1975 publication to describe Hatch Patterns as "ANSI32" and the like. Unfortunately, since getting rid of the National Bureau of Standards (in 1986) it has become massively more commonplace.
JST
Alibre Super User
One presumes the NIST is not a bunch of liars, and that the spec listed is not something the typesetter decided to put together that day for practice.
In any case, NIST references all go to this document. Find a better reference and we'll talk.
It still has little or no relevance....
You do not like the fact that the customer uses a tape to lay out steel. There are all sorts of tapes, of course, including very accurate, and on down to dollar store articles that have no accuracy.
That has NOTHING to do with how accurate the drawing given to that (or any) client are, or can be.
And I am struggling to see the relevance of any of the arguments to what appears to be a very straightforward CAD tool (that does not exist in Alibre yet) which would put numbers to what now has to be an assumption, a "cheat".
You seem to feel that the suggested feature is a cheat, useful only to dumb down the software to where anything fits. Yet, a number of others understand what is meant, and see the application of it. They don't, and I don't, understand your objection to having a useful tool that does not have to be used if you do not wish to use it.
There is rarely a unique single path which is "the only correct way" to operate software, or use a tool, etc. Perhaps for very specialized tools. But CAD is a universal tool, capable of many uses, and there is not just one unique "correct" use, no matter how much one insists.
To be blunt, the objectors here cannot bring a single coherent argument against the idea, an explanation of why it is bad. If there is one, have at it.
If it truly is a bad idea, I would like to know why. So far I am not understanding the relentless opposition.
(edited to remove some un-needed portions that are not as polite as they might be)
In any case, NIST references all go to this document. Find a better reference and we'll talk.
It still has little or no relevance....
You do not like the fact that the customer uses a tape to lay out steel. There are all sorts of tapes, of course, including very accurate, and on down to dollar store articles that have no accuracy.
That has NOTHING to do with how accurate the drawing given to that (or any) client are, or can be.
And I am struggling to see the relevance of any of the arguments to what appears to be a very straightforward CAD tool (that does not exist in Alibre yet) which would put numbers to what now has to be an assumption, a "cheat".
You seem to feel that the suggested feature is a cheat, useful only to dumb down the software to where anything fits. Yet, a number of others understand what is meant, and see the application of it. They don't, and I don't, understand your objection to having a useful tool that does not have to be used if you do not wish to use it.
There is rarely a unique single path which is "the only correct way" to operate software, or use a tool, etc. Perhaps for very specialized tools. But CAD is a universal tool, capable of many uses, and there is not just one unique "correct" use, no matter how much one insists.
To be blunt, the objectors here cannot bring a single coherent argument against the idea, an explanation of why it is bad. If there is one, have at it.
If it truly is a bad idea, I would like to know why. So far I am not understanding the relentless opposition.
(edited to remove some un-needed portions that are not as polite as they might be)
Last edited:
Lew_Merrick
Guest
Actually, the National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) was the punishment given to the National Bureau of Standards ffor opposing Ronald Reagan's 1983 "revision" of the ASTM A36 standard. The National Bureau of Standards (1792-1986) had an 8 paragraph Charter. The National Institute for Standard's Technology has an 850+ page "Charter." The only paragraph in those 850+ pages with an "active verb" is the one that says that it will "Portect Intellectual Property Rights." Nothing about Promulgating, Promoting, Publicizing, or Enforcing Standards.
One of the first "activities" undertaken by NIST was to halt all efforts to create the Product Description Exchange Specification (PDES) effort that had been started in 1979 after the release of the Initial Graphical Exchange Specification (IGES) by the U.S. Army. They (NIST) and the3ir "boosters" have been resp[ocible for the watering down of the STEP specification since it was "adopted" in 1996. One of their "efforts" has made compliance with ASME Pressure Vessel Codes strictly "voluntary" (which is why American manufactured air compressors are, virtually banned in Europe).
One of the first "activities" undertaken by NIST was to halt all efforts to create the Product Description Exchange Specification (PDES) effort that had been started in 1979 after the release of the Initial Graphical Exchange Specification (IGES) by the U.S. Army. They (NIST) and the3ir "boosters" have been resp[ocible for the watering down of the STEP specification since it was "adopted" in 1996. One of their "efforts" has made compliance with ASME Pressure Vessel Codes strictly "voluntary" (which is why American manufactured air compressors are, virtually banned in Europe).
Please try to keep future postings directly relevant to the topic. Let's also avoid endless re-stating of what has already been said.
Most here would benefit from considering how to put across their point in a clear and constructive manner, without either meaning to (or just appearing to) attack others. If this thread descends further it will be locked, or individuals may be banned from replying.
Most here would benefit from considering how to put across their point in a clear and constructive manner, without either meaning to (or just appearing to) attack others. If this thread descends further it will be locked, or individuals may be banned from replying.
oldfox
Alibre Super User
As my (hopefully) last post in this thread, I submit the following.
Problem:
Align bolt holes in diagonal bracing with the corner members. (simplest method I have found)
Solution:
See attached.
CAD procedure:
1. Draw members making up corner. (90deg?)
2. Punch holes in ends of said members. (Per design)
3. Assemble corner members in required angular relationship.
NOW...
4. Using "measurement tool" within Alibre, measure the diagonal distance and COPY that number. (don't forget to add 1 bolt dia.
if you are not measuring center to center)
5. Draw diagonal member and place one hole in one end. (or wherever desired)
6. Use "offset" to place a reference line from perpendicular line through first hole center to other end of diagonal piece. (or wherever)
7. Make all of your "aligns".
8. DONE
The diagonals in the example are the same piece of iron. (wood, plastic, etc.)
If any of this is unclear, ask specific questions and I will give you a specific answer.
Problem:
Align bolt holes in diagonal bracing with the corner members. (simplest method I have found)
Solution:
See attached.
CAD procedure:
1. Draw members making up corner. (90deg?)
2. Punch holes in ends of said members. (Per design)
3. Assemble corner members in required angular relationship.
NOW...
4. Using "measurement tool" within Alibre, measure the diagonal distance and COPY that number. (don't forget to add 1 bolt dia.
if you are not measuring center to center)
5. Draw diagonal member and place one hole in one end. (or wherever desired)
6. Use "offset" to place a reference line from perpendicular line through first hole center to other end of diagonal piece. (or wherever)
7. Make all of your "aligns".
8. DONE
The diagonals in the example are the same piece of iron. (wood, plastic, etc.
)If any of this is unclear, ask specific questions and I will give you a specific answer.