FET Forum

FET Development => Suggestions => Topic started by: brunover on October 06, 2008, 09:40:05 PM

Title: Splitting activities in 2+1 before of 1+1+1
Post by: brunover on October 06, 2008, 09:40:05 PM
NEED: split an activity in a week by the follow possible modes
2 + 1 (preferred)
1 + 2 (also good)
1 + 1 + 1 (only if FET is not able to place in previus mode)
I tried it by setting:
split into....activies per week = 3
duration = 1+1+1
the minimum required distance in days ... = 1
percentage = 0%
force consecutive ... = checked,
but FET tries to place in 1+1+1 mode before of 2+1
Thanks
Title: Re: Splitting activities in 2+1 before of 1+1+1
Post by: Liviu Lalescu on October 07, 2008, 07:02:29 AM
Please add container activity split into 2 activities, 2+1, and if you want this order, then add constraint 2 activities ordered.
Title: Re: Splitting activities in 2+1 before of 1+1+1
Post by: brunover on October 07, 2008, 09:49:20 AM
But so, it seems impossible to split in 1+1+1 as a second chance, if not succeed in doing 2+1
Yours truly
Title: Re: Splitting activities in 2+1 before of 1+1+1
Post by: Liviu Lalescu on October 07, 2008, 10:06:37 AM
QuoteBut so, it seems impossible to split in 1+1+1 as a second chance, if not succeed in doing 2+1
Yours truly

OK, then add 1+1+1 (A1, A2, A3) and constraint 2 activities consecutive, first activity A1, second A2, weight under 100%.
Title: Re: Splitting activities in 2+1 before of 1+1+1
Post by: brunover on October 07, 2008, 02:01:27 PM
Perfect!
Thank you
Title: Re: Splitting activities in 2+1 before of 1+1+1
Post by: Liviu Lalescu on October 07, 2008, 04:28:53 PM
It is more efficient if you lower the constraint min n days for A1, A2, A3 to 0.0% or 0.01%. FET will not place all them 3 in the same day.

Maybe you can try to input them as them 2+1 from the start, because the possibility of finding a timetable is high even with this constraint. Using the tricks above is complicated.
Title: Re: Splitting activities in 2+1 before of 1+1+1
Post by: brunover on October 08, 2008, 02:22:27 PM
I'm testing 1+1+1 (min days...=0%) with 2 consecutive activities constraints (99%). It seems to be an acceptable compromise.
Regards.