Talk:Outline Layer - Revision history

Genete at 14:57, 13 September 2007

2007-09-13T14:57:41Z

Dooglus: reply to Genete

2007-09-13T11:14:16Z

reply to Genete

Genete at 23:06, 12 September 2007

2007-09-12T23:06:10Z

New page

Hi dooglus! Thanks for fix the spelling and finishing the page. I'm so slow due to I cannot spend so much time with the computer everyday. I apologize for the amount of errors on my English.. oops!. Maybe you can include another example of use a with value negative and a Expand value positive and bigger. If the ducks width values are the proper one you can achieve funny things:

Final width = VertexWidth * OutLineWidth + Expand

OutLineWidth = -4
Expand = 30

duck 1:

VertexWidth = 5;
Final Width = 5*(-4) + 30 = 10

duck 2:

VertexWidth = 10;
Final Width = 10*(-4) + 30 = -10

In this situation the line cross a width of 0 in the middle of both ducks.
Also negative width values gives concave radius when rounded.
It is funny.--[[User:Genete|Genete]] 19:06, 12 Sep 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 13 September 2007
Line 25:		Line 25:

	: That should give the same results, right? I'll upload a screenshot anyway, and you can tell me if that's the same as you're seeing.		: That should give the same results, right? I'll upload a screenshot anyway, and you can tell me if that's the same as you're seeing.
		+
		+	:: You're right. I've corrected also the same formula for Expand. And yes, the effect I wanted to explain was perfectly described by your screenshots. See you! --[[User:Genete\|Genete]] 10:57, 13 Sep 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:14, 13 September 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Also negative width values gives concave radius when rounded.		Also negative width values gives concave radius when rounded.
	It is funny.--[[User:Genete\|Genete]] 19:06, 12 Sep 2007 (EDT)		It is funny.--[[User:Genete\|Genete]] 19:06, 12 Sep 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:I think I made a mistake in the description of Expand - it's the radius to expand, not the diameter. So in your example, I think you would need an Expand of 15, not 30. "Final width = VertexWidth * OutLineWidth + 2*Expand"
		+
		+	:Also, wouldn't it be simpler to have vertex 1:width -1; vertex 2: width 1; expand:0 width:big-enough-to-see
		+
		+	: That should give the same results, right? I'll upload a screenshot anyway, and you can tell me if that's the same as you're seeing.