157 posts,
7 writers,
79 readers,
started 85 months ago
This post is reply to #150
posted 44 months ago (Tuesday, September 29) by Sewist
If I remember the code correct, there's rather the center of the spread, and then a series of "rotating" actions. It is a rather 'heavy' function, so I believe adding visualising will affect productivity. I will look up the last upper/lower references - I am changing them to inner/outer as in the diagram.
This post has replies: ( #152 )
This post is reply to #151
posted 44 months ago (Tuesday, September 29) by jne4sl
Using inner/outer everywhere will help, thanks.
I don't doubt that adding to the function would be too much. I have the starts of a work-around calling spread twice, that is probably good enough for my purposes. I have an internal curve, c_deco, that I want to spread. I just extend that to a new "outer" path by tacking on the end points of the previous "outer" path on either end of my curve. Then I apply spread to both sets of objects, and attempt to cut off the line segments added to c_deco on the assumption the segment lengths are roughly proportional.
c_stretch2 = path(c_stretch.p1,c_deco,c_stretch.p2)
spread((p5,p2,p7,c_bend,p8,p4,p6,c_stretch2),c_bend,c_stretch2,10,25,"_")
spread((p5,p2,p7,c_bend,p8,p4,p6,c_stretch),c_bend,c_stretch,10,25)
p9_ = split(c_stretch2_,[p6:p9].l*c_stretch2_.l/c_stretch2.l,junk,temp)
p10_ = split(temp,c_deco.l*c_stretch2_.l/c_stretch2.l,c_deco_,junk)
delete(junk,temp)
It's about right:
In practice, I remember wanting something like this when apply "stretch" to a collar, there were internal markings I also wanted to "stretch".
This post has replies: ( #153 )
This post is reply to #152
posted 44 months ago (Wednesday, September 30) by Sewist
Sorry, we couldn't play with the objects that were tied to the active objects, it is really easier to redefine the positions of the points and to apply markings, taking into account the new angles. Even if it could be done by the functions, I can just see how complex the syntax will become - not practical...
This post has replies: ( #154 )
posted 43 months ago (Saturday, October 17), edited 43 months ago by jne4sl
Every now and then I have a pattern with some fussy angles, where it's hard to get a good seam allowance automatically generated. E.g. maybe a folded facing with a miter, or just a regular hem when the pattern shape is flared. If I create a pattern with seam allowance, set to zero and include a second contour representing the seam allowance I want, is that just as good? Is the generated seam allowance just a second contour, so this is about the same thing, or will it cause an issue I'm not thinking of? The line style would be heavier.
This post has replies: ( #156 )
This post is reply to #155
posted 43 months ago (Monday, October 26) by Sewist
You may add the second line, I would just recommend testing it re marker creation, as the incs are not taken into account on the very first step, and the extra width may cause another row and column of sheets added.
We are going to add more options re seams, as in manage the way they are handled at complex corners, etc.
This post has replies: ( #157 )