I have seen (and reported to Maple Support) a similar reduction in font size with Maple 2022.
I have attributed this to the 4k Monitors I am using. (This is an unconfirmed assumption.)

What type of Monitor do you use? Can you try other displays?

Do you see the reduction in fond size also in the newly introduced print layout mode?

@Joe Riel 

That works for GetMultibody()

FYI: Get Parameters also does not list "a"

A:-GetParameters()

for

Thank you for the workaround.

@Carl Love 

This is much clearer now. Maples initially known functions are actually procedures. I had overlooked that.

Thank you very much for this detailed explanation!!!

@Carl Love 

A lot to digest for a "yellow belt". Can you give me hint what  ''arctan''(algebraic) does?

Why the double right single quotes?

Works well.

Thank you!!!

@acer 

Always valid would be great, but I don't think that is possible. For now, I'd be happy with something I can check before I use it further.

Yes, this question is related to my earlier question. The difference is that this time I decided to use a step-by-step approach instead of solving sets of equations (as you showed with the "explicit" option, which I couldn't get to work this time). 

For some reason the solution switches between arctan and -arctan output after changes and/or re-execution of the document. That’s how I deal with it at the moment…

I could have asked for a solution that converts an arctan expression with a quotient as an argument. But I have the feeling that solve has more valuable information.

@one man 

For completeness, if someone wants to follow up on our discussion:
If I replace the central link with a telescope I get this compression.

Running your program I get (in Maple 2022):

Error, (in Plot:-AnalyzeData:-StandardizeData) points cannot be converted to floating-point values

@one man 

Your set of parameters only works in MapleSim if I add a prismatic joint to the link in the middle (i.e. allowing compression and extension of L5). The observable compression is (encircled in red) is substantial.

The solution that works in MapleSim with links of equal length does not accept the slightest deviation from 2/sqrt(3). The error message "DSN/RunSimulation: internal error: unable to find matching" is the same that I get with your parameter set. It indicates that a consistent set of equations for the numerical integration can't be established.

It is unsatisfactory that we cannot reach a better agreement. It seems that an expert in kinematics is needed to sort this out.

@one man 

If so, I don't get it to work. It only works in MapleSim if all links are of length 2/sqrt(3) at 2 units distance of the vertical shafts

A very nice and interesting case! This raises some questions:

In which sense do you consider the “transitions between points” not being continuous? The aminations look smooth.

I understand the deformation as an extension/compression of the link in the middle (yellow bar in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekqn4sP8JxY). If this is correct, how do you define and measure distortion?  

I have tried to replicate your animation in MapleSim. It partly works but jams after a few rotations. I think I have done something wrong with the geometry. How long are the links in your lower animation?

To your knowledge, has the forward kinematics of the vertical shaft on the right in your animation (angle of the blue shaft in the youtube clip above) been derived by someone?

In general, is the method you are applying capable of tracing one solution of inverse kinematics (here is an example that switches between two analytical solutions. https://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/219294-Issues-With-Angular-Displacement-In#answer286194)

the link does not open a document

@one man 

It’s about doing inverse kinematics without involving equations.

Acausal modeling allows to swap inputs and outputs of a (computer) model. On the contrary, in a conventional block diagram of a system (and corresponding computer tools) the flow of information always goes from input to output. Strictly speaking acausal models do not have input and output. A model can be simulated in forward and backward direction (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZWhMQ-0cEE&t=19s @ 17 min explains why and how). Exploiting this for inverse kinematics is new and not obvious (i.e. inventive).

I took the term "Inverse Model" from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0OZ9EM6dns (@ ~7min). I have not found anything better or more appropriate yet.

Inverse models are useful for studies in an early conceptual design phase. Deriving equations is the next step.  Can the method for deriving equations to which you refer be used for parallel kinematics (e.g. a stuart platform in the video above)?

Thank you for pointing out the method of dimensional reduction. I was not aware of it.

Could you provide an example how Maple prints in your setting and what you want to achieve?

@phil2  @Joe Riel Thank you for the comments!

An example for the suggestions (1) and (6)

For (1): In the example above, it is unclear how the rigid body frames connect to each other (see highlight A). Highlighting by selecting the connection lines (the observer needs a MapleSim installation for that) reveals only one crossing point at E.

A closer look shows that the renderer inserts gaps between the connection lines, depending on which line is in front of the other.

With that in mind, I have reconsidered my original suggestion of an arc, which looks to me old fashioned and can lead to overlap with other drawing items. My new simplified suggestion of modulating the width of already existing gaps would look like that:

Filling of micro gaps (at F for example, see above) should be optional for those who don’t need to see the underlining routing information and prefer uninterrupted lines wherever possible. (For lines connected to the same flange or port, I see no need for gaps to be displayed.)

This revised suggestion in its simplest implementation (no gap filling) would only widen a gap at a crossing point. No right click needed. The existing renderer already decides how and where to put gaps when it encounters crossing connection lines. -> The implementation should be moderate.

For (6): Why micro step adjustment is not straight forward. Changing the size of component C (originally the size of B without micro steps, after fine tuning at the component level) yields micros steps (D). To fix that I would now prefer to have a snap to grid option for the port that snaps to the Main subsystem grid. Snapping ports to the grid at the component level (see view below) only works if the size (measured in grid units) of the dashed bounding box (circumscribing all components of the subsystem, highlighted bellow) is in a certain ratio to the port position G on the bounding box. I have not worked out a formula, but integers seem to play an important role. I have worked out that a bounding box five times larger than the component icon in the main menu works in many cases. With such a fine-tuning effort, the component can now be moved around without creating micro steps as in the case of disabling snap to grid (and later enabling). I reserve disabling snap to grid only for some MapleSim components that come with ports that are for some reason not aligned to the grid (see H). Can't these be alligned by default?

I have a snap to grid preference and would therefore welcome any easier and intuitive alignment. But this is clearly a nice to have compared to (4) and (7).

For (2): My intention was to suggest a kind of synchronization of parameter default settings and the parameter pane. Storing current parameters does store both, the parameters in the parameter pane and the parameter default setting as they are.

What synchronizes in one direction is entering a new value in the default parameter settings. What does not work is resetting the parameter pane to the default parameters. Values and units must be entered again in the default parameter settings. Synchronizing in the direction from the parameter pane to the default paramters is not possible at all.

The compare options are beneficial for parameter changes within a session or between models that are not too different. In all cases a good parameter reference set must exist. When models are merged or attempted to simulate for the first time, there is nothing to compare to that worked.

For 7: A log file would record the sequence of user actions including changes of parameters and ICs (and could possibly in future releases even replay the user actions of analysis purposes).  

For (4): Instead of suggesting an unspecific better and more intelligent algorithm that anticipates any kind of use errors I thought of visual aids for performing quick sanity checks. Any help on mastering and managing ICs would have a very positive impact on the user experience.

Excellent content and presentation on text book level! In the absence of a Mapleprimes bookmark function, have put this among my favorites as a real favorite.

@Joe Riel 

Yes, flipping horizontally in your example would also reverse the direction of flow from right to left.

Your example addresses another use case that I did not mention: Aligning the direction of flow in a subsystem to the parent subsystem. Having the ports in a component oriented in the same way as the parent subsystem improves readability when "zooming" by double click into a component. Example: After structuring a model with subsystems (some of them might come from other models) it turns out that rearranging of subsystems in the main subsystem matches better to the real-world configuration. This most likey will induce reversed flow/orientation in some subsystems.

Another motivation that I did not mention for a flip (or a rotation) is reducing the number of crossing connection lines.

It is difficult to anticipate all such instances for a layout modification in advance.

Creating a model is often much faster than getting it to the point where it can be presented to third parties (e.g., a customer) or professionally documented for future use. In general it would be great if we could save time on that.

When I think about it, better readability (reduced number of flips in orientation and avoidance of crossing connection lines) is more important to me than preserving a polished layout (which was my original intention in listing 3).