On 29-03-12 10:59, Valerie wrote:
The unclump option is already in the align and distribute dialog.
So... should I add it or not?
I wouldn't. If it turns out to be really handy to have it explicitly linked with tilings as well, then it should probably be just a matter of creating another button that does the same thing as the button in the align and distribute dialog. (I haven't double checked that the really do the same thing, but I can't imagine what could be different.)
This might give some problems when used with the fuse cut method (with or without borders). In principle the user can obviously create a design based on a rectangular tile, but this might not be the most
natural.
You mean edge scenarios right? It shouldn't be a problem for inner tiles, since you can just duplicate the pattern to fill the missing part, and Inkscape will still cut it more or less correctly.
How about this? You can skew, but if you mess with the handles, the tile snaps to 90 degrees angle again. It becomes skewed again if you go back to P1 or P2.
(I don't envy the person who wants to try to program the tiles...)
Hmm... Perhaps it's best to just leave this for now. It's only in the fuse (cut) method(s) that this matters, and it might be best to start simple and see whether it becomes necessary to make it more complicated.
Partially. One of the things that would make interpolation work really well with tiled clones is that they are conceptually laid out in a grid
True. Leaving dynamics out made the design conception much easier, but I realized that having to go back and add dynamics separately would be annoying in the end. Here's what I propose:
http://postimage.org/image/4235075wd/ ...
Each dot offers a visual representation of opacity, blur and HLS. Mouse-over gives exact values. Double-click to define exact values.
This looks a bit (too) free form, but if that's just to show different options, that's fine. So then essentially the behaviour would be that if you change a tile in the "tiling mode", you change all tiles, while if you change a tiled clone using the normal tools, you only change that tile? If not, what would be the point in having these two separate ways of doing things? (In fact, in light of your second question below and my answer to it, I think it might not make that much sense.)
At this point I hope the programing folks can answer a few questions about interpolation:
- It is possible to define interpolation over both rows And columns
using just a start tile and a reference tile (example: a base tile at the upper-left and a reference tile and the bottom-right). The current tiling dialogue forces you to define changes for both Rows and Columns. Though, in that scenario, maybe Inkscape just divides the values over Rows and Columns (I still need to make sure though that users don't need to choose two reference tiles besides the base tile).
I've been thinking about this, and I think the most natural method would probably be to act more or less like a gradient does, so the start tile would be the first stop, and the reference tile the last. So if they are both on the same row, then all tiles within a column have the same value. This should also translate very directly to what Inkscape currently uses.
The underlying assumption is that the interpolation is (effectively) linear, like with a gradient. It is then sufficient to have the values at two points, in combination with the assumption that the "isolines" run perpendicular to the line through both points given. Alternatively, you can use the values at three points.
However, this is assuming you are interpolating a single quantity. In principle, if you are interpolating multivariate data (like colors or transforms), then you'd either want to be able to set up the interpolation per component (this is essentially what Inkscape currently does), or take three values into account.
In short, for things like transforms, you probably want to allow three values to be set (so two reference frames). However, I haven't checked yet whether this is compatible with what Inkscape currently does (whether we can specify the same transforms or more), and I would recommend also allowing just one reference frame (is less flexible, but probably already matches a lot of cases).
- Could each render tile in fact be considered more or less like an
independent tile? Like, should we have the option to allows the user to break a tile apart and drag it around independently? (internally, Inkscape would still keep track of their row and column value, so users could still use some mechanism to select a whole row for example)
In principle it could. Basically you can consider each tile as a transformed version of the original tile. If you can somehow distinguish between the transform applied to it by the tiling and the additional transform applied by the user, then yes, you can allow what you describe. (Might also be useful for things like jitter, and "undoing" such transforms.)