Messages

استخدم قيد الزمن: أقصى تزامن لأنشطة في فترات زمنية محددة.
حدد كل أنشطة التطبيقي، يمكن استخدام وسم كعلامة لكل أنشطة التطبيقي.
حدد جميع الفترات الزمنة.
ثم ضع أقصى تزامن =2.  بالتوفيق

[MAT]

Sweet idea, Benahmed! MATT or maybe even MAT.

Thank you, Liviu!
MAT is also a good name, or maybe MA2T, because we have 2 letters of T.

Yes, it is a generalization. It is an update of both "mutually exclusive" and "max activity tags per day/real day".

Unfortunately, as the "max activity tags per day/real day", allowing 3 or more as a limit is too complicated. But I hope it is not really needed.

Thank you for this explanation!

[MAnual Timetabling Tool]

for a new name I suggest the following name:
MAnual Timetabling Tool

Short name: MATT

The word manual comes from the fact that the main functions of this tool are done manually.

In addition, this name mentioned above, I think is easily read in all the languages of the world.

Hello Volker!
To name an application, I think it is better to choose only the first letters of each word that makes up the name (like FET). Avoid choosing the first 2 letters. This way we will have a shorter name that sounds better to the ear.

Why is the choice of max occupancy limited to only 2 in this new constraint?
Why not leave the user the freedom to select the max number of occupancy according to their needs?

Can we say that this new constraint is not really new in the proper sense of the term since it is a generalization of the previous constraint (mutually exclusive)?

Thank you!

Maybe allowing breaks for the constraint (the check box would be checked) would allow one activity in the morning and the next one in the afternoon; otherwise, they must be immediately consecutive on the same half day.

agree with this idea.

Also, for the Mornings-Afternoons mode, the two activities must be on the same half day if they are on the same real day. This is current in FET. Do you need to allow one activity morning and the other afternoon?

I think that for the morning - afternoon mode it does not matter; the 2 activities placed in the same half-day or separated, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon... but we must accept that this is relative and depends a lot on the wishes of the users.

Not quite since some users introduce breaks between hours others don't. but personally I must admit that I use 100% weight for min days between activities. so this addition for me is useless. but my suggestion is general and maybe useful for others who use a weight < 100%. but if it leads to FET instability, avoiding it by keeping things as they are now is better.

Yes, I agree with you. It will be as you said: useless because the new variable will only work if the first variable works, but it is simple and understandable and does not complicate things too much.

Maybe, but I prefer to leave things as they are, and simply add one line with a selection square: allow a break between activities.

or this sentence:Allow consecutive activities to spread after a break time...

or this: if consecutive allow activities to spread after a break time.

Maybe, but I prefer to leave things as they are, and simply add one line with a selection square: allow a break between activities.

thank you!

Suggestion: If it is possible to add this feature as an option (selection box) to this constraint,  it would be better and beneficial for everyone.