NEW: converting node to smooth improved
Kevin,
I reviewed your page at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/kevincharles/inkscape/ncwf.htm - thanks for the detailed description. I just committed a fix to Inkscape CVS. Now you can achieve your result with a single click. In Node tool, either Ctrl+click the node, or select it and click the "Make selected node smooth" button. The node will get handles and its adjacent segments will become curves, but the neighbouring nodes will remain cusp.
Kevin,
I reviewed your page at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/kevincharles/inkscape/ncwf.htm - thanks for the detailed description. I just committed a fix to Inkscape CVS. Now you can achieve your result with a single click. In Node tool, either Ctrl+click the node, or select it and click the "Make selected node smooth" button. The node will get handles and its adjacent segments will become curves, but the neighbouring nodes will remain cusp.
Woohoo! But since you started this, I have to comment... First off, I'm so glad that we're headed down this path with the node editing tool.
1) With Illustrator, when you pull the handles out of a node, it is symmetric until you release the mouse button. Basically, you pull the handle out of one side of the node and it automatically extends the other handle the same amount in the opposite direction (but once you release the button, the handles are free to move on their own). The thing that makes this handy is that you can control how far the handles extend from the node, instead of them just appearing at a set distance. The nodes are also basically cusp after that first mouse-up too... so you can move the node handles independently. I guess what makes it weird for me in our current implementation is that you ctrl+click, and they appear... instead of you pulling them out of the node and controlling all in one mousedown/click. Does that make sense?
2) Another benefit of node editing in Illustrator that may already be possible in Inkscape (although I don't know how), is independently getting rid of node handles. What I mean is that if you have handles pulled out of a node, you can snap 'em back into the node (so they don't extend from it at all). This is also very handy.
Hopefully my description makes sense... I figured I'd throw it out there since you were working on node editing.
-Josh
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:14:12 -0700, Joshua A. Andler <joshua@...533...> wrote:
- With Illustrator, when you pull the handles out of a node, it is
symmetric until you release the mouse button.
Just make it symmetric (Shift+Y) if you want symmetry.
Basically, you pull the handle out of one side of the node and it automatically extends the other handle the same amount in the opposite direction (but once you release the button, the handles are free to move on their own).
What's the advantage of this? In Inkscape nodes are either symmetric or smooth, and it's easy to switch that.
The thing that makes this handy is that you can control how far the handles extend from the node, instead of them just appearing at a set distance.
The advantages of Inkscape approach are that 1) it is more obvious and 2) you can select any number of nodes and do Shift+S on all of them, and each one will be "smoothed" by an appropriate amount, depending on the position of its neighbors. After that you can manually adjust handles as needed.
The nodes are also basically cusp after that first mouse-up too...
Just Shift+C to make it cusp (handles will remain).
- Another benefit of node editing in Illustrator that may already be
possible in Inkscape (although I don't know how), is independently getting rid of node handles. What I mean is that if you have handles pulled out of a node, you can snap 'em back into the node (so they don't extend from it at all). This is also very handy.
That makes sense, I just implemented it:
* In Node tool, Ctrl+click on a node handle moves it back to its node.
- With Illustrator, when you pull the handles out of a node, it is
symmetric until you release the mouse button.
Just make it symmetric (Shift+Y) if you want symmetry.
I probably didn't explain myself well... It's not that the nodes are truly symmetric, it's that they are "equal" on first pull/extension of the handles. If I use the angle node tool on a non-modified node in Illustrator it "creates" the handles, and pulls the "mirror handle" out from the object automatically. And on first "creation" of handles it will create an "opposite" handle that is equal (it's mirrored and basically like how our symmetric ones work). It doesn't remain symmetric, but it saves time on having to pull a second handle from the other side of the node (yes we don't have to pull a second one as is, but you have no control of placement/distance either).
Basically, you pull the handle out of one side of the node and it automatically extends the other handle the same amount in the opposite direction (but once you release the button, the handles are free to move on their own).
What's the advantage of this? In Inkscape nodes are either symmetric or smooth, and it's easy to switch that.
It's a pain having to switch that though... In the same way that when you ctrl+click an object and it creates two handles at a set distance from a node. The Illustrator way lets you CHOOSE the distance and angle of the handles from the get-go.
It's not sooo different from what you added, but the difference is choice of distance from node is involved. If you'd like screenshots to illustrate, that's not a problem... but it's not so much different than what you added other than the interaction and control part. If I had these controls available when doing "Gaze", it would have taken a bit less time.
The thing that makes this handy is that you can control how far the
handles
extend from the node, instead of them just appearing at a set
distance.
The advantages of Inkscape approach are that 1) it is more obvious and 2) you can select any number of nodes and do Shift+S on all of them, and each one will be "smoothed" by an appropriate amount, depending on the position of its neighbors. After that you can manually adjust handles as needed.
Is it more obvious because you are stuck with the same result every time lacking control? I honestly don't see the "more obvious" part otherwise. I agree that auto-smoothing is awesome, but I think that initial node creation and working with them could be a little more user-friendly and a little more interactive/intuitive. I think that manually adjusting handles is good, but it shouldn't just be a "you can manually adjust it AFTER it's created thing". It should be you modify it while creating it/it being interactive at the initial creation... as opposed to the create then modify approach.
The nodes are also basically cusp after that first mouse-up too...
Just Shift+C to make it cusp (handles will remain).
I know how to do that, I'm just saying that pulling out the handles and working with them in Illustrator can be much easier in Illustrator than in Inkscape. I'm trying to describe a behavior that is hard to understand unless you work with it frequently. You can extend the handles from a "blank" node in Illustrator, which is handy, and then edit them as need be. No switching "modes", only working with modifier keys to get the behavior desired. I can create a step-by-step for you if you'd like, please let me know. The benefit is not HAVING to choose modes, but getting the desired effect by using modifier keys.
- Another benefit of node editing in Illustrator that may already
be
possible in Inkscape (although I don't know how), is independently getting rid of node handles. What I mean is that if you have handles pulled out of a node, you can snap 'em back into the node (so they
don't
extend from it at all). This is also very handy.
That makes sense, I just implemented it:
- In Node tool, Ctrl+click on a node handle moves it back to its node.
You rock! =)
Bulia, I love your work... you honestly add the most useful stuff to inkscape of any of the devs (for my workflow at least)... but this is one area, where I think that suggestions from users of software other than Xara will benefit YOUR workflow as well. I'm more than happy to even record a movie of how it works, especially since vodka doesn't help my communication skills. ;)
-Josh
Morning guys!!
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 20:20 -0700, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
- With Illustrator, when you pull the handles out of a node, it is
symmetric until you release the mouse button.
Just make it symmetric (Shift+Y) if you want symmetry.
I probably didn't explain myself well... It's not that the nodes are truly symmetric, it's that they are "equal" on first pull/extension of the handles. If I use the angle node tool on a non-modified node in Illustrator it "creates" the handles, and pulls the "mirror handle" out from the object automatically. And on first "creation" of handles it will create an "opposite" handle that is equal (it's mirrored and basically like how our symmetric ones work). It doesn't remain symmetric, but it saves time on having to pull a second handle from the other side of the node (yes we don't have to pull a second one as is, but you have no control of placement/distance either).
Frankly: I _hate_ this about illustrator! Maybe it's because I'm coming from Corel and can't really handle the illustrator way of modifying nodes, but I always screw up my curves because I get the nodes to be symmetrical when I don't want them to.... and then there's like three tools for node editing, that's plain weird.
Bulia, I love your work... you honestly add the most useful stuff to inkscape of any of the devs (for my workflow at least)... but this is one area, where I think that suggestions from users of software other than Xara will benefit YOUR workflow as well.
Yes, have a look at Corel Draw :)
Take care!
David
- With Illustrator, when you pull the handles out of a node, it
is
symmetric until you release the mouse button.
Just make it symmetric (Shift+Y) if you want symmetry.
I probably didn't explain myself well... It's not that the nodes are truly symmetric, it's that they are "equal" on first pull/extension
of
the handles. If I use the angle node tool on a non-modified node in Illustrator it "creates" the handles, and pulls the "mirror handle"
out
from the object automatically. And on first "creation" of handles it will create an "opposite" handle that is equal (it's mirrored and basically like how our symmetric ones work). It doesn't remain symmetric, but it saves time on having to pull a second handle from
the
other side of the node (yes we don't have to pull a second one as
is,
but you have no control of placement/distance either).
Frankly: I _hate_ this about illustrator! Maybe it's because I'm
coming
from Corel and can't really handle the illustrator way of modifying nodes, but I always screw up my curves because I get the nodes to be symmetrical when I don't want them to.... and then there's like three tools for node editing, that's plain weird.
Different strokes, eh? I'm not too familiar with how Corel does it, as when I was first checking out Illustration software, I checked both DRAW & Illustrator, and Illustrator was just more useable for me.
Three tools for node editing? If that's the case, then Inkscape has two tools for node editing, correct?
What is the best behavior you can think of for handle "creation"? Is it what we currently have? Or is Corel a bit more useable for you?
Bulia, I love your work... you honestly add the most useful stuff to inkscape of any of the devs (for my workflow at least)... but this
is
one area, where I think that suggestions from users of software
other
than Xara will benefit YOUR workflow as well.
Yes, have a look at Corel Draw :)
heh... I'm going to download it myself today, to see what I think. I'm downloading trials for Freehand, Corel, & Xara to compare against Inkscape and Illustrator to see what method or control set is the most useable/beneficial for different uses.
One thing that makes usability different for us right out of the gate is that you (David) seem to do Design work... and I tend to do Illustration (and some design work too, but significantly more Illustration).
-Josh
Bulia:
Many thanks!
I know that AI converts everywhere will really appreciate it, and I think it makes IS all the better. See, this kind of response is exactly why OSS is a better model than closed source software, and why IS has a value that is significant to AI users. I will certainy let the designers I associate with know about the change.
I just read this, by the way, after my response to Alan, where I mention this issue.
General question: how long, generally, from when something gets fixed in CVS and when it appears in the installer for Win32?
Thanks again, -Kevin
bulia byak wrote:
Kevin,
I reviewed your page at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/kevincharles/inkscape/ncwf.htm - thanks for the detailed description. I just committed a fix to Inkscape CVS. Now you can achieve your result with a single click. In Node tool, either Ctrl+click the node, or select it and click the "Make selected node smooth" button. The node will get handles and its adjacent segments will become curves, but the neighbouring nodes will remain cusp.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:51:41AM -0500, Kevin Wixson wrote:
General question: how long, generally, from when something gets fixed in CVS and when it appears in the installer for Win32?
Well, if you don't want an _installer_, and can deal with just a zip bundle (and you're comfortable running bleed-edge, which ... may not be the best idea right now). You can grab the every-4-hours win32 builds here: http://www.inkscape.org/win32-snap/
As for "official" releases, we don't have a set schedule, but it looks like we've been cutting one every 2 to 4 months. (0.37 came out Feb 2004, 0.41 came out Feb 2005.)
Kees Cook wrote:
the best idea right now). You can grab the every-4-hours win32 builds here: http://www.inkscape.org/win32-snap/
Yeah, I've had varrying degrees of success when copying these files into my file structure. That's all I'm supposed to do, right? The latest one, for instance, isn't rendering the Gradient tool icon and it's throwing a warning at me about it.
-Kevin
Kees Cook wrote:
the best idea right now). You can grab the every-4-hours win32
builds
Yeah, I've had varrying degrees of success when copying these files
into
my file structure. That's all I'm supposed to do, right? The latest
one,
for instance, isn't rendering the Gradient tool icon and it's throwing
a
warning at me about it.
By your "file structure" what do you mean? Basically if you have .41 (or a previous version) installed, all you need to do is unzip the every-4-hour builds into a _different_ directory. (basically your real install is your stable one, and then you have a separate folder for the CVS builds)
The installed version is good to have as it is stable, but obviously already lacking many of the new features. The key is, don't overwrite the installed ver.
-Josh
Joshua A. Andler wrote:
By your "file structure" what do you mean? Basically if you have .41 (or a previous version) installed, all you need to do is unzip the every-4-hour builds into a _different_ directory. (basically your real install is your stable one, and then you have a separate folder for the CVS builds)
I have been copying the files into the same directory. Would just copying the downloaded files into a new directory create any problems for me vis a vis the Windows Registry?
- Kevin Wixson
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:11:31 -0500, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
I have been copying the files into the same directory. Would just copying the downloaded files into a new directory create any problems for me vis a vis the Windows Registry?
As a cross-platform application, we do not use the Windows Registry.
By your "file structure" what do you mean? Basically if you have .41
(or
a previous version) installed, all you need to do is unzip the every-4-hour builds into a _different_ directory. (basically your
real
install is your stable one, and then you have a separate folder for
the
CVS builds)
I have been copying the files into the same directory. Would just copying the downloaded files into a new directory create any problems for me vis a vis the Windows Registry?
- Kevin Wixson
Nope, shouldn't be any problems at all... inkscape uses "User data" folders on both Windows & Linux to take care of you prefs and such (by user data folers I mean it's within your "Documents and Settings" stuff. I'd recommend reinstalling a "stable" copy though, just to have on hand. And then just creating a new dir for the CVS builds. For example you could have inkscape and an inkscape-cvs folder in my Program Files dir (or anywhere else), and it would work great.
NOTE: you will have to manually create a shortcut to your cvs version for easy access. If you are in the inkscape-cvs folder (or whatever you named it) in windows explorer and grab the exe file with the mouse and hold the "ALT" key, that'll be the easiest method to create a shortcut.
kevin,
If your are only grapping exe's then you need to one time grab the whole build again. The reason being that a new tool has a new icon in the icon.svg that is probably what it warning you about.
joshua blocher vebalshadow
I finally got a chance to download the nightly build and try out the new node conversion functionality. Thanks so much for making that change, Bulia. I really do appreciate it.
I have a question about it though. When trying it out I discovered a peculiar behavior with the adjacent nodes to the one converted with the "make node smooth" command. In order to move it twice, you have to click off the object in between moves or you pull out a control handle. Does it have to be like that, or can those adjacent nodes behave exactly like real cusp nodes instead? Having to click off the object in between moves is a hit to productivity and doesn't really make sense (imho). If the artist wants control handles on that adjacent node, eventually, then they can convert it. Then if they want one of those control handles to be in the node, they can use the Ctrl+click on the control handle feature (which is brilliant, by the way) to make that happen. Which brings up another interesting question as well, perhaps: How do I make a smooth node a cusp? That led me to another idea, which is better explained with pictures. I put up another demonstration page showing screenshots of what I'm talking about at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/kevincharles/inkscape/ncwf2.htm
By the way, I'm struggling with terminology. I take "cusp" to mean a node that doesn't have control handles and does not influence the direction of the line, as opposed to a "corner" node, which has control handles that can move in independent directions, and "smooth" which has control handles in the same plane but are different lengths, and "symmetric" which has control handles in the same plane and with the same length. Is this correct?
Thanks again, -Kevin Wixson
bulia byak wrote:
Kevin,
I reviewed your page at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/kevincharles/inkscape/ncwf.htm - thanks for the detailed description. I just committed a fix to Inkscape CVS. Now you can achieve your result with a single click. In Node tool, either Ctrl+click the node, or select it and click the "Make selected node smooth" button. The node will get handles and its adjacent segments will become curves, but the neighbouring nodes will remain cusp.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:43:36 -0500, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
I have a question about it though. When trying it out I discovered a peculiar behavior with the adjacent nodes to the one converted with the "make node smooth" command. In order to move it twice, you have to click off the object in between moves or you pull out a control handle.
Yeah, I knew you would notice that :) I'm aware of this problem but I'm not yet sure how to best fix it. Your proposal:
Cusp nodes will never have control handles, even when they're adjacent to smooth nodes.
is not possible because in SVG, each path fragment is either a line or a curve. If it's a line, none of its ends have control handles, otherwise both have. We can't have it midway, and actually I don't think we need. It's not a problem; the problem is just the user interface to this.
I cannot fix it simply by making a node always selectable in preference over its handles (if the handles are at the same point), because in that case you would never be able to drag out the handles even if you need them, which is bad.
A similar problem is in Selector where sometimes you start dragging a wrong object instead of the one you had selected. To fix it there, I added Alt+drag which always drags the selected object no matter where you start the drag. I think a similar approach can be used here: make Alt+drag always drag the selected node(s) no matter where you start the drag, or whether some handles are in the way. Will that work for you?
Or alternatively, I can make nodes always selectable and draggable in preference to handles, but also provide a way to drag _out_ a handle if it's retracted (e.g. by dragging with Shift, similar to un-merging merged gradient handles with Shift). Will this be better?
Then if they want one of those control handles to be in the node, they can use the Ctrl+click on the control handle feature (which is brilliant, by the way) to make that happen.
For the reasons above, ctrl+click does not actually remove the handle, it just retracts it back to the node.
By the way, I'm struggling with terminology. I take "cusp" to mean a node that doesn't have control handles and does not influence the direction of the line, as opposed to a "corner" node, which has control handles that can move in independent directions, and "smooth" which has control handles in the same plane but are different lengths, and "symmetric" which has control handles in the same plane and with the same length. Is this correct?
No, a cusp is a node whose handles can rotate independently. It's still cusp if any of its handles are retracted to the node itself. I think we don't have a name for a node that sits between two straight line segments and therefore has no handles at all; it may be called "corner". However we don't want this to be a separate node type that you can turn a node into, because (again, for reasons above) this would affect the other ends of its segments too, which is often not desirable. My latest change was to treat the "corner" node the same as cusp when converting type, i.e. add handles to it when making it smooth. Now you understand that this necessitated converting the neighboring "corner" nodes to cusps with retracted handles.
So, I think that if we will be able to drag a node with retracted handles, but ALSO some way to drag out a retracted handle (with Shift), then just regular cusp nodes with retracted handles can for all intents and purposes be undistinguishable from "corner", and we won't need "corner" as a separate type. Dragging out a handle with Shift can be made to work even for true corner nodes - it will just have to convert the adjacent fragment to curve first. I think this will be quite convenient, will keep the list of node types from unneeded growth, and will mostly eliminate the need to use the clumsy "convert segment to line/curve" buttons.
bulia byak wrote:
Cusp nodes will never have control handles, even when they're adjacent to smooth nodes.
is not possible because in SVG, each path fragment is either a line or a curve. If it's a line, none of its ends have control handles,
Well, implementation is something about which I can not really express an informed suggestion. All I can say is that somehow other programs manage, so I'm sure you'll figure out a way, too. But just because I'm curious, why can't all lines drawn be two points be "curves," just straight ones that look like straight lines? Wouldn't that open a lot of doors for you on the implementation side, when it comes to nodes?
A similar problem is in Selector where sometimes you start dragging a wrong object instead of the one you had selected. To fix it there, I added Alt+drag which always drags the selected object no matter where you start the drag. I think a similar approach can be used here: make Alt+drag always drag the selected node(s) no matter where you start the drag, or whether some handles are in the way. Will that work for you?
Hmmmm... I don't know. I guess it depends on what develops with the rest of the node editing capabilities, per our other discussion.
Or alternatively, I can make nodes always selectable and draggable in preference to handles, but also provide a way to drag _out_ a handle if it's retracted (e.g. by dragging with Shift, similar to un-merging merged gradient handles with Shift). Will this be better?
This is a good suggestion, and at the moment I like this better. I think whatever it is it should be consistent with what happens with extended capabilities (if any) the Pen tool gets, so they're as similar as possible.
By the way, I'm struggling with terminology. I take "cusp" to mean a node that doesn't have control handles and does not influence the direction of the line, as opposed to a "corner" node, which has control handles that can move in independent directions, and "smooth" which has control handles in the same plane but are different lengths, and "symmetric" which has control handles in the same plane and with the same length. Is this correct?
No, a cusp is a node whose handles can rotate independently. It's still cusp if any of its handles are retracted to the node itself. I think we don't have a name for a node that sits between two straight line segments and therefore has no handles at all; it may be called "corner". However we don't want this to be a separate node type that you can turn a node into, because (again, for reasons above) this would affect the other ends of its segments too, which is often not desirable. My latest change was to treat the "corner" node the same as cusp when converting type, i.e. add handles to it when making it smooth. Now you understand that this necessitated converting the neighboring "corner" nodes to cusps with retracted handles.
So, I think that if we will be able to drag a node with retracted handles, but ALSO some way to drag out a retracted handle (with Shift), then just regular cusp nodes with retracted handles can for all intents and purposes be undistinguishable from "corner", and we won't need "corner" as a separate type. Dragging out a handle with Shift can be made to work even for true corner nodes - it will just have to convert the adjacent fragment to curve first. I think this will be quite convenient, will keep the list of node types from unneeded growth, and will mostly eliminate the need to use the clumsy "convert segment to line/curve" buttons.
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I still don't understand, or maybe I do and I am just unsure. So, there are now 4 types of nodes?
Corner: no control handles (might go away and be merged with "cusp", I was calling these "straight" on IRC) Cusp: control handles move independently Smooth: control handles have independent lengths but the same vector Symmetric: control handles have same length and vector
Correct now?
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:32:41 -0500, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
is not possible because in SVG, each path fragment is either a line or a curve. If it's a line, none of its ends have control handles,
Well, implementation is something about which I can not really express an informed suggestion. All I can say is that somehow other programs manage, so I'm sure you'll figure out a way, too. But just because I'm curious, why can't all lines drawn be two points be "curves," just straight ones that look like straight lines? Wouldn't that open a lot of doors for you on the implementation side, when it comes to nodes?
I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it?
Or alternatively, I can make nodes always selectable and draggable in preference to handles, but also provide a way to drag _out_ a handle if it's retracted (e.g. by dragging with Shift, similar to un-merging merged gradient handles with Shift). Will this be better?
This is a good suggestion, and at the moment I like this better. I think whatever it is it should be consistent with what happens with extended capabilities (if any) the Pen tool gets, so they're as similar as possible.
OK I'll implement it.
Corner: no control handles (might go away and be merged with "cusp", I was calling these "straight" on IRC) Cusp: control handles move independently Smooth: control handles have independent lengths but the same vector Symmetric: control handles have same length and vector
Correct now?
No. There are only 3 types. Corner is not a type. It's just a cusp with retracted handles. It's not in the ctrl+click cycling order. You can use the term "corner" to describe such nodes but do not call it a "node type".
Quoting Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...>:
is not possible because in SVG, each path fragment is either a
line or a curve. If it's a line, none of its ends have control handles,
Well, implementation is something about which I can not really express an informed suggestion. All I can say is that somehow other programs manage, so I'm sure you'll figure out a way, too.
Probably what would yield the expected results would be to just use a normal bezier segment, but make the control point on the 'corner' side coincident with that endpoint and hide its knot.
But just because I'm curious, why can't all lines drawn be two points be "curves,", just straight ones that look like straight lines? Wouldn't that open a lot of doors for you on the implementation side, when it comes to nodes?
Lines-as-curves lose numerical precision, curves aren't as fast to draw, and someone familiar with SVG would specifically expect to be able to make normal SVG line segments (versus straight curves) from the GUI. So generally you will want to use lines when the user really means straight lines.
-mental
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:13:24 -0500, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Quoting Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...>:
is not possible because in SVG, each path fragment is either a
line or a curve. If it's a line, none of its ends have control handles,
Well, implementation is something about which I can not really express an informed suggestion. All I can say is that somehow other programs manage, so I'm sure you'll figure out a way, too.
Probably what would yield the expected results would be to just use a normal bezier segment, but make the control point on the 'corner' side coincident with that endpoint and hide its knot.
That's exactly what I'm doing. For the user there will be no difference between a node without handles or a node with retracted handles.
bulia byak wrote:
Probably what would yield the expected results would be to just use a normal bezier segment, but make the control point on the 'corner' side coincident with that endpoint and hide its knot.
That's exactly what I'm doing. For the user there will be no difference between a node without handles or a node with retracted handles.
Cool, whatever works. The user experience is the name of the game as far as I'm concerned and we (users) will trust you smart people all have stuff figured out under the hood. :)
-Kevin
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 15:22 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
either Ctrl+click the node, or select it and click the "Make selected node smooth" button. The node will get handles and its adjacent segments will become curves, but the neighbouring nodes will remain cusp.
Hi Bulya, together with handle retracting on ctrl+click and the shift+drag pull of the handles from any node, this makes node editing so much more usable. If you by any chance come to Stuttgart for Guadec, I owe you a beer! ;)
One thing I can't figure out. Is it possible somehow to make smooth-node's handles symmetric around the node?
cheers
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 11:25 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:05:29 +0100, Jakub Steiner <jimmac@...659...> wrote:
One thing I can't figure out. Is it possible somehow to make smooth-node's handles symmetric around the node?
Shift+Y?
Eek, indeed, there's a special node type just for that! Pardon the noise.
cheers
participants (8)
-
unknown＠example.com -
bulia byak -
David Christian Berg -
Jakub Steiner -
Joshua A. Andler -
Joshua Blocher -
Kees Cook -
Kevin Wixson