My watchface ‘Real Steel’ is a learning watchface that has 3 arc type complications. I sort of understand the mathematics but always end up having to ‘fudge’ it to make them work. I understand that there are 360 degrees in a circle and if the arc is 60 degrees then to have the same 360 degrees movement in 60 degrees each degree has to be smaller so 60/360. An example would be (#BLN#*60/360). To move the hand or pointer to where i wanted it to start I add the number of degrees I need , so ((#BLN#*60/360)+ [or - ]20) sticking a minus at the front and a couple more parentheses will make it go anticlockwise, BUT somewhere my logic is wrong because I always have to fudge the result to make the hand be in the right position. I would be grateful if someone can correct my logic. I like fudge but want to understand
Muito legal…todo estilo…quero aprender!!!
Very cool…all styles…I want to learn!!!
@BIELITZ / Well done I see no Fudge . Keep the descriptive style of maths as Peter has Taught us . It helps when we go back . I do a lot of what I do by trial and error . That could be called Fuddery .
The numbers are correct but perhaps in a different order . For me the Rotation starts at the start point . Having chosen the direction .
When it is possible reduce your variable to a Fraction of One then multiply it by the angle you want it to travel.
Lots to learn No Rush .
Let me answer a question… in this case, would it be wrong for me to copy the formulas for some things?
The inspection is open on the watchface so you are welcome to use whatever is there in your own designs but take note of what @russellcresser has said. Both you and I can learn a lot from the guys in this community - they are really helpful as you have already found out.
Você está corretíssimo @BIELITZ e o amigo @russellcresser tem sido um excelente orientador, que a todo tempo me auxilia com minhas dúvidas assim, com outros a quem não há como colocar o nome de todos aqui. Perguntei pois, os marcos estavam todos bloqueados então, não sabia se podia utilizar…mas, eu posso? Gostaria de tirar essa dúvida pra não cometer nenhuma infração.
You are absolutely correct @BIELITZ and my friend @russellcresser has been an excellent advisor, who always helps me with my doubts like this, with others for whom there is no way to put everyone’s name here. I asked because the landmarks were all blocked so I didn’t know if I could use them…but can I? I would like to clarify this doubt so as not to commit any infraction.
The seconds hand formula seems good to me. I started from scratch and came to the exact same.
No fudge. I deduct the formula as you put it:
Starting angle: 195
End angle: 127
Now you need to put 360° into 68, so 68/360
Then you need to put the starting point: 195
And lastly the direction: + or -
Hi, help yourself - the objects are only locked because I’m a world expert on accidentally grabbing them and moving them. I do wish that Facer would change the way selection works. Logic says that if you put the cursor on an object and click then it’s selected but that’s not the case in Facer Creator. I have started to lock objects/layers as I go - at least they stay where I put them!
So if there’s no fudgematics the fudge must be somewhere else - I mean who uses numbers like 127 & 68? I don’t think that I can blame Facer
this time, rather it must be my drawing skills!
There is a certain Style in Placing stuff at abstract angles . Some of us have to have stuff set to a grid . It can always be made to work .
Amazing. After reading what you guys wrote, I feel like my head just exploded. Are you guys all software engineers? I am trying to learn! Thank you all for sharing your wisdom. I’m taking notes.
Most are not Software engineers . Most of us do exactly what you are doing . Keep good Notes . Inspect Faces that are left open as Gifts . Ask questions on here . Most of all enjoy your new Obsession .
No, not software engineering. I have a degree in Computer Science, but I suck at software development. But I can say that I am pretty good at math…
My math highlight in terms of watch faces as been having fun with gears. Check the forum here
I would Agree that you are good at maths Tom .
Ther is a Topic I invite you to join in on .
Ah, yes. Seen that, not sure its my thing, but I’ll have a think about it… hmmm, maybe a sun dial with shadows…
I see @pbervoets has published a Face using Images shown at the right time . I think the problem is solved . I notice that a Standard Elliptical Orbit keeps to the marks . But I am a bit lost converting that to a Hand length and Angle . I know others have done it but can not track them down . I have some other stuff going on so It is difficult to give as much time as I would like .
Ah, I had that idea too and was about to try that secretly myself, but now it would not be a surprise anymore
Yes, but you can still surprise us depending on its features. The few sundial watch faces I have see are rather simple. Interesting would be to also consider the length of the shadow depending winter/summer. So there is more math to it if you want…
Peter . There are many of us that will still be surprised by your work . Some are not . They are the ones that have not had a go . Even if you know you will be given a Gift it is always a Surprise .