![]() However, I think that the issue raised in Figure 4 is something that should be looked at as a bug. Maybe someone can think of a good compromise? I have a feeling that this particular issue is a long-haul debate where either side is as valid as the other but in different ways. I can see positives and negatives to each method too. I think you're right about my question not being easy to answer. But what does everyone else think? Is it just me being stupid or picky or am I on to something here? Tell me what you think. Personally I think it should use the shape's current rotation as a starting point as it seems more natural and expected. my question to the rest of the forum is this: "Should Scribus take the current rotation of a shape into account as a starting point when rotating, or should it use the shape's original orientation?" ![]() If you know you're going to be rotating things, plan ahead and make sure you know what you're doing.Īnd. after all that, my "friendly warning" to people is to be careful when rotating things as the results may not be how you might naturally expect. Then I duplicated/rotated the shape and finally got my flower shape. Then I changed the rotation base-point to the bottom-left. So, then I modified the original shape so that its pointy end was at the corner of the bounding box. After some thought this seems reasonable but maybe not what could be expected as I've used other software that works differently - that could just be my unreasonable expectations though. On top of this, the bounding box of the shape stays in the same orientation as the shape rather than the box "reorganising itself" to be a different shape but in the horizontal/vertical axes. They're the same as in Figure two but start in the "wrong" place because of the earlier rotation. What had happened was that the shape was still rotated around the top-left-hand corner of the bounding box but that corner was now at the right of the shape, and Scribus still thinks that the top-left-hand corner of the frame is at the top-left-hand of the shape so it starts rotating from that position which is why the rotated shapes are where they are. ![]() Then I tried the rotation again, and the results were worse. This showed me that the duplicates had been rotated around the top-left-hand corner of the frame the shape is in (as is default and shown in the XYZ section of the Properties palette, as pictured).Īll that sounds fine and is how it should be but it obviously this wasn't what I wanted so I thought I'd rotate the shape - by 225 degrees - to make its pointy end at the top-left corner, as in Figure 3. However that wasn't as easy as I thought it might be.įirst, as a test, I tried to create two duplicates rotated by 20 degrees. My expectation was that I could duplicate/rotate (menu "Item -> Multiple Duplicate") it about the pointy end to create the "face" of a flower. I was trying to draw a simple flower - don't me ask why - and I started with a simple petal. And after a bit of experimenting I thought I'd share some of my experiences. As soon as you apply a second transformation (skew, scale) Inkscape switches to using the matrix() function - and getting the rotation out of that is beyond my mathematical skills.I was messing around with the Scribus rotation tools recently - I don't use them very much - and found that they didn't work in the way I thought they might. Be aware, however, that this only works if you've just rotated the object. You can view this via Edit > XML Editor, and can change the first value to set an absolute rotation. The first parameter of that function is the rotation angle, relative to the coordinate system. With that done, simple rotations will result in a 'transform' attribute being added to the XML with a rotate() function. For example, transforming a line will add a 'transform' attribute to the XML, whereas in 'Optimised' mode it will change the coordinates of the nodes instead. This stops Inkscape reducing transformations down to simpler primitives where it can. However in specific situations, there are ways to achieve what you want, though not with a very user-friendly UI.įirst of all you'll need to ensure that Preferences > Behaviour > Transforms is set to 'Preserved'. In the general case this is not possible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |