nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

FTA "Arrange All" has problems - how to control this?

medini_1035261689

Hi all, I have a FTA where "Arrange All" does not correctly layout the tree: Wrong layout: But not all. Here an example of a "correct" one: Any ideas how to improve or correct the layouting? Best regards, Michael

Find more posts tagged with

medini

medini legacy

Accepted answers

medini_1059007410

Hi Michael, That looks valid. Then the layouter is overstrained by the amount of children, without a quick solution. By the way - a voting gate wouldn't be an option for you, would it? 24 for 2 samples wouldn't be exactly a voting gate output, but maybe you can consider it for simplifications (if you haven't done already). Regards, Nils

All comments

medini_1059007410

Hi Michael, Is that a valid fault tree in the first diagram? Each intermediate event ("DFA Combination x/y") should only be connected to a single OR gate. It has to be a tree, not a network. The UI wouldn't allow anything else, but via script one could create such an invalid graph (until you try to evaluate it), and the "Arrange All" would produce such an output. In case it is a valid tree, then - well, the layouter in any case has room for improvements ;-). That's a known topic and we have mid-term plans to enhance it. Regards, Nils

medini_1035261689

Hello Nils, the FTA does look like following in the Model Browser: In principle is lengthly list of 2pair ANDs below 2 levell OR structure. Regards, Michael

medini_1059007410

medini_1035261689

Hello Nils, you are complete right. The VOTE gate is the perfect solution for this: Layouting is fine now. And the "logic" behind is also clearly "stated". Thansk your the quick and splendid support. Regards, Michael