"Freeze panes" in Mathcad?

[jjayakumar]

I am trying to create a mathcad in which the user selects one of the two options (lets say Load Case 1 & Load Case 2) in the beginning of the sheet. Subsequent to this selection, a few calculations take place in the sheet. Now when the user is lets say 10 pages down, I want him to be able to switch between these options so that all the calculations in the mathcad now reflect the results based on this revised choice. I was hoping to see something like a "freeze panes" option in excel or to see some floating region which would be visible at all times to the user.

[nas0k]

If your change a variable on page 10 then repeat the calculations, the results will follow the new variable designation, while the previous pages still refer to the previous data. What also works well if you add a subscript to your variable and include that subscript in your functions, calculations, etc...

I hope this helps.

Norm

[StuartBruff]

Jayaprakash Jayakumar wrote:

I was hoping to see something like a "freeze panes" option in excel or to see some floating region which would be visible at all times to the user.

Some of us have been hoping to see something like that (or multiple windows onto a single worksheet) for over a decade.   

Still, it's nice to know the torch is being passed to a new generation!

I am trying to create a mathcad in which the user selects one of the two options (lets say Load Case 1 & Load Case 2) in the beginning of the sheet. Subsequent to this selection, a few calculations take place in the sheet. Now when the user is lets say 10 pages down, I want him to be able to switch between these options so that all the calculations in the mathcad now reflect the results based on this revised choice. I was hoping to see something like a "freeze panes" option in excel or to see some floating region which would be visible at all times to the user.

There are some possibilities depending upon what version of Mathcad you are using (eg, Prime n.m or Mathcad n.m), but one thing you should be able to do in all versions is define your load cases as global variables on page 10.   Mathcad effectively runs through a worksheet twice when compiling it.  During the first pass it evaluates anything defined using the global definition operator and during the second pass it evaluates anything defined using the standard := definition operator, taking into account anything defined during the first pass.  A consequence of this, is that if you change a global variable, then it affects any standard definitions anywhere in the worksheet, even if their definitions occur further up and/or to the left of the global definition.

Stuart

[RichardJ]

The global definition exists in Prime, but the behavior is not the same. It is simply a definition that is valid everywhere in the worksheet. Unlike in MC15 and earlier, it cannot be overridden by a local definition, and you cannot have more than one global definition for one variable. It will still do what Jayaprakash wants, but not in quite the same way.

[jjayakumar]

Thank you all for your replies!

Can I take that in summary this feature does not exist in the existing version of Mathcad?

Also is there some way we can request this to be included in the future versions? Cause I think having some "floating" feature would be of great help especially when you are doing design iterations where I can have all the design parameters to float on the sheet and change them anytime without having to scroll up and down.

[RichardJ]

Also is there some way we can request this to be included in the future versions?

if you have active maintenance, yes. Go to the idea section of thee forums: https://community.ptc.com/t5/PTC-Mathcad-Ideas/idb-p/PTCMathcadIdeas

It's been requested multiple times though, for at least a decade (like so many other things!), so you are probably wasting your breath.

[StuartBruff]

Richard Jackson wrote:

The global definition exists in Prime, but the behavior is not the same. It is simply a definition that is valid everywhere in the worksheet. Unlike in MC15 and earlier, it cannot be overridden by a local definition, and you cannot have more than one global definition for one variable.

Sadly, I've already been bitten by that particular lack of capability.   I wonder if there is a reasonable justification for this, or whether it just fell into the "Nobody needs to do that" or "Too Hard" categories?  It's a real pain when trying to develop / modify code.

It will still do what Jayaprakash wants, but not in quite the same way.

Call, me paranoid, but I did actually check that before I posted!

Stuart

[RichardJ]

I wonder if there is a reasonable justification for this

That might depend on your definition of "reasonable". It was decided that it was too confusing for users (engineers and scientists apparently have a very limited mental capacity). The original intent was to just dump it completely, but they were persuaded by user feedback to implement it, even if in a more limited way.

[StuartBruff]

Richard Jackson wrote:

I wonder if there is a reasonable justification for this

That might depend on your definition of "reasonable". It was decided that it was too confusing for users (engineers and scientists apparently have a very limited mental capacity).

I take it Nannyware mentality came as part of the Mathcad package then?  The Lowest Common Denominator Strikes Again!

Stuart