Difference between revisions of "Talk:Outline Layer"
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: 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) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:57, 13 September 2007
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.--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.
- 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! --Genete 10:57, 13 Sep 2007 (EDT)
