On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jabiertxo Arraiza Cenoz <jabier.arraiza@...2982...> wrote:
Hi Nathan. I do a deeper look.

El mar, 13-05-2014 a las 03:40 +1000, Nathan Hurst escribió:
1) to my old astigmatic eyes the tangents do not look like they are
> quite matched, are you sure you have the tangent code correct.  This
> is especially noticable when you are filleting a curve rather than a
> line.

When I convert to paths a filleting the result curvature is a path of
one segment, start and end nodes of this are tangent to front-back
curves, and thsi sttart and end nodes are also handled as tangent for
the inkscape UI.

Maybe the problem is how far is the tangent handle from a node, but
there isn`t a perfect way to determine, it depends from case.
I use the nearest point to the tangent from a point placed at a half
distance from the real knot filleting to the original cusp node.

Here are some pics about how it works: http://sta.sh/28yrjqkdiw1

Is there any real benefit to the knots being offset from their origin vs overlapping? Since by default, the fillet & chamfer knots are 10px (and 90degrees CCW) offset from their "origin", it is not very obvious what they're connected to.

See the linked image (1) to see how this is massively confusing. The top object has the knots offset to 0px and looks as expected, the bottom one is the default when the LPE is first applied. By default here, the green knots all correspond to nodes that they are fairly offset from. In this case the top-left node has a control knot that is overlapping the bottom-left node. The bottom-left node has a knot floating to the right of it. As a default this is really bad for usability imho.

One more suggestion (if possible) would be to add a field for "focused knot" which contains the numerical value of the last dragged or clicked knot. This would be nice to fine tune things for perfectionists without forcing them into the xml editor.

(1) http://imgur.com/4Ga31GC