4. Leveling / symmetrical arrangement of the generated polygons

Leveling / symmetrical arrangement of the generated polygons

  • administrators

    @Gremriel Holding Shift+ while drawing these shapes, constrains the angle to the value set in preferences. Could that solve this issue?

    I checked what AD does. They draw all these shapes as boxes (ending up with scaled shapes). I don't really agree with that approach, but it can be added as an option (technically, it is easier to draw these as boxes).

    0 1 Reply
  • G

    Hi,

    Yep, holding shift works. For some reason it completely escaped me, and I'm someone who presses all kinds of keys to see what they do 🙂

    2
  • E

    @vectoradmin All of the shapes in the attached screenshot are drawn using Shift. Where to find the settings responsible for it?

    Edit:

    Ok. I discovered the source of my problems. I'm scaling and drawing objects from top-left corner to bottom-right. Shapes are aligned proprely only from bottom to top.
    https://recordit.co/WIF7II69oY

    Edit 2:
    Maybe some kind of indicator or axis would make it easier to understand? What do you think? I understand that writing a formula that will be suitable for all combinations without using a box will be difficult?
    0_1631383931401_screenshot_20210911_201124.png

    0
    G
     1 Reply
  • G

    @encart said in Leveling / symmetrical arrangement of the generated polygons:

    @vectoradmin All of the shapes in the attached screenshot are drawn using Shift. Where to find the settings responsible for it?

    Preferences -> Editing Options -> Angle Constraint. I have it set to 15 degree increments.

    0

  • @vectoradmin Closed shapes being drawn at arbitrary angles is better in my opinion — I for one don't mind that at all.

    However, I don't think tying Shift-rotate to the 'Angle Constraint' value in Prefs > Editing Options is that useful for the Polygon and Star tools (and the others similar to them).

    When you want to draw a triangle, or a pentagon or a 5-pointed star so that one of it's sides or points is aligned horizontally or vertically (what @encart is asking), that fixed value in Preferences can't fit them all.

    So I think it would be better for these tools to have the constrain angle tied to the number of sides of the shape.

    If it's…

    • a triangle, use 60° (360 / (3 * 2));
    • a four-sided polygon, use 45° (360 / (4 * 2));
    • a pentagon, use 36° (360 / (5 * 2));
    • a hexagon, use 30° (360 / (6 * 2));

    …and so on.

    1 2 Replies
  • administrators

    @b77 I added this to the backlog.

    1
  • administrators

    @b77 Using the polygon side count to determine the snapping angle will not work. These are the angles at which the polygon looks the same (rotational symmetry).

    0 1 Reply

  • @vectoradmin That's why i said to divide 360° to double the sides count. This should alternate between (at least) one side being horizontal or one tip of the polygon being pointed symmetrically downwards. (A 4-sided polygon should look like a square rotated at 45° or like an unrotated square).

    1 1 Reply
  • administrators

    @b77 Yes, I just realized that I did not read it all 🙂 was in a rush.
    Should also snap to the angle set in preferences (45 degree)? Can be a combination of both (whichever is closer).

    0 1 Reply

  • @vectoradmin @encart @Gremriel
    I don't think I would need 45° constrain for polygons and stars, but maybe others would? Simply rotating them 45° afterwards could be the solution for those cases.

    0
  • administrators

    @encart @b77 @Gremriel Build 1.0.052 adds shape specific angle constraint when holding Shift. For example: when drawing a polygon, holding shift will snap the rotation to multiples of 180 / sides. This can be used to align a side of the polygon horizontally or vertically.

    2