Making the collider tool cursor's snapping when approaching a node more robust
-
@Nils If I understand correctly, the collider tool should make it easier to select actual nodes of a path, not just move smoothly along any point of a curve?
-
@vectoradmin I'll post a gif, along with a behavior with the reflect tool that causes a similar problem, but a bit worse. Let me know if I should create a separate post for the reflect tool instead.
-
@vectoradmin Here's the video where you see both, the fragile collider tool snapping and the missing reflect tool snapping.
Too long for embeddable gif.
-
@Nils Got it!
-
@Nils Let me know if this problem still occurs in build 1.1.024
-
@vectoradmin The collider tool snapping is still as fragile as shown in the video above.
When approaching the node the snapping indicator pops up. However, moving any further after the indicator popped up will move the indicator along the path. Imo it should stay in place for a small radius, just like snapping a path to another does. This would ensure precise collider tool snapping.
Here's a gif showing the difference specifically:
Here's another gif showing the still missing reflect tool snapping:
-
@vectoradmin As for the points in the original topic: I'll separate these out into different feature requests and limit this topic to the fragile collider snapping only. Then I'll also create a new feature request for the missing reflect tool snapping, separately. This should make these easier to track, I guess.
EDIT: Can confirm that object rotation centers now do snap to other objects's nodes and paths ( not sure anymore if this wasn't already the case with all the things I've posted, lol ).
-
@Nils I keep this issue open. There is a Snapping Gap option in preferences, could increasing that make things better?
-
For anyone encountering this issue:
This is solved by increasing the "Snapping Gap" option's value in Edit > Preferences > Editing Options.
-
@vectoradmin Oh yeah, I increased the snapping gap to 32 and that gets rid of the problem completely! This also solves the problem in the following topic I authored:
