Leveling / symmetrical arrangement of the generated polygons

VectorStyler

@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).

Gremriel

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

encart

@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?

Gremriel

@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.

b77

@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.

VectorStyler

@b77 I added this to the backlog.

VectorStyler

@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).

b77

@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).

VectorStyler

@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).

b77

@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.

VectorStyler

@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.