@Doug Meade 

Here the data for the plot

dataForTags.mw

For the tags, I would like to use the tp vector again.

Thank you for your help

@Carl Love 

Thank you carl you perfectly answer to my need

@Carl Love 

Thank you for your help.

I hope that we will find your former code again.

Don't you store this code on your computer ?

@Thomas Richard 

On this point, is it possible to do with MapleSim only the kinematics ? I'm not sur. I believe that with MapleSim it is only possible to make the dynamics study but not only the kinematics.

@Joe Riel @Carl Love 

Thank you for your tips.

It is a pity that you find the process of Carl not efficient because I found it very appropriated for my need. What do you mean by "standalone" ? is it the fact that you cannot create a procedure 2 that use the procedure 1 in the same module with this way of building a module. In other words, the procedures should be independant if you use this way of creating module.

Mac Dude Thank you for your example. 

@one man

Congratulation for your animation. It looks very nice. I look forward reading your paper which will detail the method used. I would be very interested as I told you before to better see the mechanical equations that you have written namely the constraint equations.

It would be great if you add comments, or sections in your worksheet so that it would be possible for readers to analyse the mechanical assumptions and modeling that you made (of course, it is not a confidential project).

@acer 

OK. Thank you for your feedback. Let me know when you have a satisfying version. I will be very interested to see and use it.

Benjamin

@tomleslie 

Thanks a lot. You perfectly answer to my question

@Carl Love

You are right. Thank you for your precision. 

@tomleslie 

First, for the expected result, i made a mistake, here is the right expected result :

Second, I add this lines at the beginning of my code so as to change the definition of Psi, and transform Psi in a basic symbol (and not a in-built function)

constants:= ({constants} minus {Psi})[]:
`evalf/Psi`:= proc() end proc:
`evalf/constant/Psi`:= proc() end proc:
unprotect(Psi);

third, you are also right concerning gamma0, I forgot to conduct one substitution.

fourth, I put a semicolon in the list of my substitutions.

So, now it works well with eval[recurse](eq, [ChgtVariables]);

I put an extract of my code for information.

correction.mw

Thanks a lot.

@Mac Dude 

Perfect thank you for your help

Can you give a example so that people can help you ?

The best is to give a piece of code showing your problem.

@mattcanderson1 

@tomleslie 

Thank you for your help.

You are right, sorry for this question. I was a bit tired at the end of the week.

For you picture, I can't see it.

@tomleslie 

I still have my issue here the code for troubleshooting :

for i to 4 do
EqAng1mod1[i]:=[tan(alpha0(t)) = tan(alpha[i](t)), sin(beta0(t)) = sin(beta[i](t))];
od;

for i to 4 do
EQ1[i]:=alpha0(t)=solve(EqAng1mod1[i][1],alpha0(t)) assuming -Pi/2 < alpha0(t) and alpha0(t) < Pi/2:
EQ2[i]:=beta0(t)=solve(EqAng2mod1[i][2],beta0(t)) assuming 0 < beta0(t) and beta0(t) < Pi:
EqAng1mod2[i]:=[EQ1[i],EQ2[i]];
od;

Thanks a lot for your help

@tomleslie 

You exactly get the point !

And consequently, do you have ideas so as to better "wrap" the assumptions ? The objective is that the second equation be not evaluated as a assumtion