# Align Tool and other aligns

**URL:** <https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/align-tool-and-other-aligns/9506>\
**Category:** Modeling Questions\
**Created:** [October 24, 2020, 3:17pm UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/align-tool-and-other-aligns/9506 "2020-10-24T15:17:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rotalumis](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.shapr3d.com/rotalumis/32/12289_2.png) [@rotalumis](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/rotalumis)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2020, 3:17pm UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/align-tool-and-other-aligns/9506/1 "2020-10-24T15:17:39Z")

</div>

I like the new Align tool a lot. As I understand it the **first** body selected “moves” toward the **second** select body, very clear and intuitive behaviour… so why don’t extend it toward other “aligns”??

For example, concentric constrain: the **first** circle you select goes concentric to the **second** selected circle. As the concentric constrain works now I can’t find a similar straightforward logic…

There are probabily others tools/constrains where first/second selections would benefit, the concentric one was the first to come to my mind.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Istvan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.shapr3d.com/istvan/32/23668_2.png) [@Istvan](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/Istvan)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2020, 9:37pm UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/align-tool-and-other-aligns/9506/2 "2020-10-24T21:37:53Z")

</div>

That’s a great observation, and thanks for the feedback. It should work like that. The problem is that it’s a little bit out of our control, because for constraint solving we are using the industry standard d-cubed component (the same component that Solidworks is using for example, [https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/global/en/products/plm-components/d-cubed.html](https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/global/en/products/plm-components/d-cubed.html)) and often we have little control over what happens when resolving new constraints. But this is definitely a great catch, and we will look into this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rotalumis](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.shapr3d.com/rotalumis/32/12289_2.png) [@rotalumis](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/rotalumis)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2020, 12:34pm UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/align-tool-and-other-aligns/9506/3 "2020-10-25T12:34:46Z")

</div>

Thank you for your answer, clearly we all share the concept that the user experience is the center core of adopting a tool, either physical or software. In this regard it is “weird” (I don’t have a better word for that) that the d-cubed component forces a constrain regardless of the user experience: as it appears, it solves the constrains from a purely mathematically point of view, without offering a “contact point” to twich the interface.

I followed the link you indicated, quite interesting in itself, there is a small paragraph at the end of the “2D Geometric Constraint Solver” section ([https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/global/en/products/plm-components/2d-dcm.html](https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/global/en/products/plm-components/2d-dcm.html)) that says: " **Solving options and diagnostics:** Preferred solving outcomes can be specified, such as minimal movement of geometry."

If I broaden the meaning of it, there _ **could** _ be some kind of way out…?!

I love the program, mind you, keep up the excellent work! 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Istvan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.shapr3d.com/istvan/32/23668_2.png) [@Istvan](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/Istvan)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2020, 12:36pm UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/align-tool-and-other-aligns/9506/4 "2020-10-25T12:36:41Z")

</div>

Yes, I think we can do something to improve it, it’s just that the outcome will be not _always_ what you would expect, but we can significantly improve it.