Hi there, I wasn’t able to fully understand what your definition does as I don’t have Karamba on my machine. However, it looks like your definition is doing a lot at the same time. I think a general shape is being described but some detail members are also worked out at the same time. A picture of the geometry would help.

Your problem is that the scope of search is too big and the calculation time for each attempt is probably very long.

@ivelin.peychev had some good recommendations about the sliders. Remember that for each slider you’re adding, you’re increasing the dimension of the solution space. You go from looking for a point on a meter stick, to a point on a map to a needle in a haystack, etc. I also found that if the algorithms that are affected by sliders are smooth in their change, the solvers have a much better chance to converge on a solution.

I would recommend breaking the optimization problem up into bite size pieces. I’d start with a very simplified structural setup with only the key members in place. That definition should be able to run really fast and be controlled by only a few variables. From there you’ll have a good idea where your final solution will lies so you can either lock down those parameters or significantly limit their range. From there you can run subsequent optimizations where you increase the complexity. Keep in mind the the maximum complexity that can be optimized in a reasonable amount of time might force you to keep trivial parts of your design out of the optimization process and leave them to be strictly dependent on other more important aspects.