Hello,
I want to ask if this is solvable with constraint system in V9:
Triangle ABC is fixed. I need A to lie on line 1. B and C lie on curve 3. Note that curve 3 is not arc, its just a arbitrary curve.
Or even better. Just define A must lie on 1 and distances of C and B to 3 must be equal to distance A to 2.
Thanks
If you move the triangle with A over 2 the you can scale the triangle from A and it should give you the result.
But If you post a file would be easyer to uderstand.
Triangle is fixed with dimensions, no scaling can be used. Basically this problem consists of on translation along 1 and 1 rotation to fulfil B, C lie on 3. But i dont see how this can be done manually without constraint solver.
now i am trying V9 and i see no way how to do it. Constraints are just meant for constrained sketches not to manipulate and position objects. Sadly.
If you can recreate the triangle and curves in Solvespace, I think you may get your answer from it. Ive used it for resolving similar problems. And itâs freeâŚ
i believe this would be the limitation. it mentions line not curve 
Hereâs how this is set up with Kangaroo in Grasshopper
The same constraints and solving are available in V9 through the Rhino constraint manager
Admittedly the interface isnât currently very intuitive and requires a lot of clicking, but weâre aware of the issue and are aiming to improve this.
that would be what Iâd call a geometrical âcoincidentâ constraint.
two more geometrical âcoincidentâ constraints.
that shouldnât matter, even as the curve transforms, Rhino should find a way to be compatible imo.
âcoincidentâ constraint. very simple. compared to GH, Rhino should be able to do this easily.
sounds like a combination of âgeometricalâ and âdimensionalâ constraints.
Rhino indeed, simply needs loops added or something.
Sadly yes, during V8 wip they were going in the wrong direction with the aspect of constraints.
It should be â3D all the timeâ, naturally the way Rhino already is. That would be epic.
GH Kangaroo I think has signs of this, but needs loops or something idk.
Yeah, I think the nomenclature of Rhino does lack some consistency. Sometimes line is used when considering a curve, and vice versa.
expecially considering how âparametricâ everyone thinks GH is.
sadly they skipped the most basic geometric and dimensional constraints of the whole industry, and went off into the cosmos.
like using a cannon to go into orbit, instead of a space elevator. 
I had a feelinâ. A fresh off the grill example of how I know Rhino is the best CAD. 
music to my ears. 
interesting:
I know I might not be helping, but just sharing that Iâm enjoying this cool technology while I learn. 
Kangaroo one oâ my favs.
Also interesting:
I look forward to constraints not being constrained to âsketchesâ.
So, using my testing skills, I noticed the constraint didnât maintain the coincident rule when I dragged the point:
Think I crashed it.
I tried it now, the first way i described is possible but with the second which requires perpendicular distances to curves it is not possible. This could be a useful constraint. Perp to curve or distance between point and curve (perp distance). The problem may arise i dont think there is strictly one solution then.
If only we could see the âdegrees of freedomâ or DOF as we apply constraints. 
Does this mean there is some sort of timeline as to when work on constraints is picked up again?
If B and C lie on curve 3, their distance to 3 is 0.
If the triangle is fixed, are you looking for curves/lines that fulfil your criteria?
Please clarify your problem.
sounds like a dimensional constraint, but a geometric constraint of âcoincidenceâ would suffice as well.
I think that would be a geometric constraint as well, maybe âequalâ.
Yes only problem is that you cannot define distance to curve, only to line, otherwise it would be solvable in rhino
The definition of this problem is still not precise enough.
There is currently an infinite amount of possible solutions.
