issue184:inkscape
Différences
Ci-dessous, les différences entre deux révisions de la page.
Les deux révisions précédentesRévision précédenteProchaine révision | Révision précédente | ||
issue184:inkscape [2022/08/28 18:20] – d52fr | issue184:inkscape [2022/08/31 11:53] (Version actuelle) – auntiee | ||
---|---|---|---|
Ligne 4: | Ligne 4: | ||
The first change is that the Taper Smoothing control has now been split into two parameters, governing the start and end smoothing respectively. In this context, smoothing refers to the shape of the taper, from a very rounded taper (smoothing: 1.0) to a straight line (smoothing: 0). You can see both of these used on the image below, which shows some of the effects that can be produced with this LPE when used on exaggeratedly thick lines. The Left-hand line displays the sensible limits of the smoothing parameter (1.0 at the top, and 0 at the bottom), while the rightmost line shows the effect of setting these to more extreme values (+/- 10.0 in this case).** | The first change is that the Taper Smoothing control has now been split into two parameters, governing the start and end smoothing respectively. In this context, smoothing refers to the shape of the taper, from a very rounded taper (smoothing: 1.0) to a straight line (smoothing: 0). You can see both of these used on the image below, which shows some of the effects that can be produced with this LPE when used on exaggeratedly thick lines. The Left-hand line displays the sensible limits of the smoothing parameter (1.0 at the top, and 0 at the bottom), while the rightmost line shows the effect of setting these to more extreme values (+/- 10.0 in this case).** | ||
+ | |||
+ | J'ai décrit pour la première fois le LPE Contour fuselé dans la partie 67 de cette série (FCM n° 127). À l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Avec la version 1.1 d' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Le premier changement est que le contrôle du lissage conique a maintenant été divisé en deux paramètres, | ||
+ | |||
**This image also shows the other addition to this LPE: the ability to alter the direction of the taper. The second and fourth lines use the default “center” direction, but the first and third have their start and end directions variously set to “left” and “right”. These are the only three options available – it’s not possible to have a taper that terminates only slightly left of center, for example. | **This image also shows the other addition to this LPE: the ability to alter the direction of the taper. The second and fourth lines use the default “center” direction, but the first and third have their start and end directions variously set to “left” and “right”. These are the only three options available – it’s not possible to have a taper that terminates only slightly left of center, for example. | ||
Ligne 12: | Ligne 19: | ||
With that, we’ve reached the end of the new Live Path Effects added in Inkscape 1.0 and 1.1 (I’m skipping the experimental LPEs for the reasons mentioned last time). But these releases also brought with them some new extensions, which I’ll describe below, and next month. These can all be found under the Extensions menu, of course, and I’ve included the relevant submenu at the start of each section title.** | With that, we’ve reached the end of the new Live Path Effects added in Inkscape 1.0 and 1.1 (I’m skipping the experimental LPEs for the reasons mentioned last time). But these releases also brought with them some new extensions, which I’ll describe below, and next month. These can all be found under the Extensions menu, of course, and I’ve included the relevant submenu at the start of each section title.** | ||
+ | |||
+ | Cette image montre également l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Il est important de noter que les désignations « gauche » et « droite » sont relatives à la direction du chemin. Imaginez-vous en train de marcher le long du chemin du début à la fin pour déterminer quel côté est à droite et quel côté est à gauche. Dans l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | J'ai laissé la ligne la plus à gauche sélectionnée afin de montrer les poignées qui sont visibles lorsque l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Avec cela, nous avons atteint la fin des nouveaux effets dynamiques de chemin (LPE) ajoutés dans Inkscape 1.0 et 1.1 (je passe sur les LPE expérimentaux pour les raisons mentionnées la dernière fois). Mais ces versions ont également apporté de nouvelles extensions, que je décrirai ci-dessous, et le mois prochain. Elles se trouvent toutes dans le menu Extensions, bien sûr, et j'ai inclus le sous-menu correspondant au début de chaque titre de section. | ||
+ | |||
**Render > Frame | **Render > Frame | ||
Ligne 22: | Ligne 38: | ||
Now we’ll run the extension with some pretty standard values to get started: Position is set to Outside, the checkboxes are left un-ticked, the stroke width is set to 2px and the corner radius to 10. Finally the stroke color is set to black, and the fill (on the second tab) is transparent (alpha = 0). Here’s the result:** | Now we’ll run the extension with some pretty standard values to get started: Position is set to Outside, the checkboxes are left un-ticked, the stroke width is set to 2px and the corner radius to 10. Finally the stroke color is set to black, and the fill (on the second tab) is transparent (alpha = 0). Here’s the result:** | ||
+ | |||
+ | Rendu > Cadre | ||
+ | |||
+ | Commençons par une extension simple. Celle-ci dessine un « cadre » autour de chaque objet sélectionné dans votre image. J'ai mis le mot « cadre » entre guillemets car il suggère quelque chose de bien plus impressionnant que le résultat produit par cette extension. Vous pourriez imaginer un cadre orné, une bordure de type nœud celtique, ou peut-être quelque chose d' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Dessiner un rectangle qui épouse exactement l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Regardons-la en action. Nous allons commencer par sélectionner plusieurs éléments sur le canevas. Dans ce cas, il y a deux sélections - une seule étoile en haut et un groupe de deux étoiles en bas. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nous allons maintenant exécuter l' | ||
+ | |||
**The Inside/ | **The Inside/ | ||
Ligne 28: | Ligne 55: | ||
The Group checkbox, on the other hand, does seem to work. But all it does is group the selected object with its corresponding frame, saving you a small manual step if you need to keep the object and its frame together in this way.** | The Group checkbox, on the other hand, does seem to work. But all it does is group the selected object with its corresponding frame, saving you a small manual step if you need to keep the object and its frame together in this way.** | ||
+ | |||
+ | La fenêtre contextuelle Interne/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | La case à cocher Chemin de découpe détermine si l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | La case à cocher Groupe, en revanche, semble fonctionner. Mais tout ce qu' | ||
**The new frame is rendered on top of the selected object. Bear that in mind before setting the Fill tab to use an opaque color, as it will obscure the original element. You can change the stacking order after applying the extension, of course, but it’s another step to be aware of. | **The new frame is rendered on top of the selected object. Bear that in mind before setting the Fill tab to use an opaque color, as it will obscure the original element. You can change the stacking order after applying the extension, of course, but it’s another step to be aware of. | ||
I don’t really see the point in this extension. It would make some sense if there was a field in which to add a padding value, allowing for frames that don’t hug the content quite so tightly. If the frame could be rendered in the background as well, this would provide an easy way to add a box and background color for multiple items, turning them into buttons or icons, for example. As it stands, I see little benefit of using this extension over learning the small number of steps to perform this task manually, unless you have a very large number of objects that require tightly fitting rectangles around them for some reason. Ironically the next extension would have been a perfect example of a use for this feature, if it wasn’t for the fact that the output of the Frame extension is not at all in the right form for Export Layer Slices to use…** | I don’t really see the point in this extension. It would make some sense if there was a field in which to add a padding value, allowing for frames that don’t hug the content quite so tightly. If the frame could be rendered in the background as well, this would provide an easy way to add a box and background color for multiple items, turning them into buttons or icons, for example. As it stands, I see little benefit of using this extension over learning the small number of steps to perform this task manually, unless you have a very large number of objects that require tightly fitting rectangles around them for some reason. Ironically the next extension would have been a perfect example of a use for this feature, if it wasn’t for the fact that the output of the Frame extension is not at all in the right form for Export Layer Slices to use…** | ||
+ | |||
+ | Le nouveau cadre est rendu par-dessus l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Je ne vois pas vraiment l' | ||
+ | |||
**Export > Export Layer Slices | **Export > Export Layer Slices | ||
Ligne 40: | Ligne 78: | ||
When creating your slicing layer, you need to ensure that the name of the layer is the same as the name used in the extension’s UI. By default, this is “slices”, | When creating your slicing layer, you need to ensure that the name of the layer is the same as the name used in the extension’s UI. By default, this is “slices”, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Exporter > Export Layer Slices | ||
+ | |||
+ | Inkscape dispose déjà d'un mécanisme natif permettant d' | ||
+ | |||
+ | L' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lorsque vous créez votre calque de découpage, vous devez vous assurer que le nom du calque est le même que celui utilisé dans l' | ||
+ | |||
**Set your export directory, and the DPI for the images, and hit the Apply button to create your PNG files. If you want fine control over the filenames, you can first change the ID of each rectangle via the Object ‣ Object Properties dialog (don’t forget to hit the “Set” button). And you probably also want to tick the “Overwrite existing exports” checkbox, otherwise the extension will refuse to replace any existing files with the same names. | **Set your export directory, and the DPI for the images, and hit the Apply button to create your PNG files. If you want fine control over the filenames, you can first change the ID of each rectangle via the Object ‣ Object Properties dialog (don’t forget to hit the “Set” button). And you probably also want to tick the “Overwrite existing exports” checkbox, otherwise the extension will refuse to replace any existing files with the same names. | ||
Ligne 46: | Ligne 93: | ||
But perhaps you want the rectangle included, to provide a nice border for your exported PNG. You take the time to set the stroke width and color… only to find that your own choice of styles is replaced by the extension after the export. The rectangle’s stroke is removed and the fill is replaced with a shade of gray (file already exists and was not overwritten), | But perhaps you want the rectangle included, to provide a nice border for your exported PNG. You take the time to set the stroke width and color… only to find that your own choice of styles is replaced by the extension after the export. The rectangle’s stroke is removed and the fill is replaced with a shade of gray (file already exists and was not overwritten), | ||
+ | |||
+ | Définissez votre répertoire d' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Malheureusement, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mais peut-être voulez-vous que le rectangle soit inclus, afin de créer une jolie bordure pour votre PNG exporté. Vous prenez le temps de définir la largeur et la couleur du trait... pour constater que votre propre choix de styles est remplacé par l' | ||
+ | |||
**In my opinion, if you want to export multiple slices of your document defined by rectangles, you may as well just use the standard Batch Export approach, with an optionally hidden slicing layer. The benefits of the extension just aren’t great enough to make it a compelling new method of performing this task. | **In my opinion, if you want to export multiple slices of your document defined by rectangles, you may as well just use the standard Batch Export approach, with an optionally hidden slicing layer. The benefits of the extension just aren’t great enough to make it a compelling new method of performing this task. | ||
Ligne 52: | Ligne 106: | ||
The image below shows the result of using Icon Mode on a single image from a character sheet. On the left you can see the original Inkscape drawing, complete with the slicing rectangle (in green, due to this screenshot being taken after the initial export). To the right, you can see the icons that were produced. Clearly not the result I would have liked or expected.** | The image below shows the result of using Icon Mode on a single image from a character sheet. On the left you can see the original Inkscape drawing, complete with the slicing rectangle (in green, due to this screenshot being taken after the initial export). To the right, you can see the icons that were produced. Clearly not the result I would have liked or expected.** | ||
+ | |||
+ | À mon avis, si vous voulez exporter plusieurs tranches de votre document définies par des rectangles, vous pouvez tout aussi bien utiliser l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Cette extension propose toutefois une autre astuce : le mode Icône. Celui-ci est activé via la case à cocher du même nom et, bien qu'il semble utile au départ, il présente également un défaut majeur qui le rend moins pratique dans de nombreux cas. Ce mode ignore le paramètre DPI et crée une série d' | ||
+ | |||
+ | L' | ||
**So there we have two of the new extensions. I hate to be cynical, but I can’t really see much benefit in either of them. The Frame extension could perhaps be useful if it allowed some padding to be specified, and created real rectangles instead of paths. The Export Layer Slices extension could be useful if it didn’t also include the slicing rectangles in the output, and if it didn’t stretch the images out of proportion in Icon mode. | **So there we have two of the new extensions. I hate to be cynical, but I can’t really see much benefit in either of them. The Frame extension could perhaps be useful if it allowed some padding to be specified, and created real rectangles instead of paths. The Export Layer Slices extension could be useful if it didn’t also include the slicing rectangles in the output, and if it didn’t stretch the images out of proportion in Icon mode. | ||
What’s most annoying is that these two extensions are frustratingly close to working well together. Imagine if the Frame extension’s default behaviour was to create real rectangles in a new “slices” layer (with optional padding, of course). Instantly, it becomes an easy way to create the initial slicing rectangles for the Layer Slices extension if you have a lot of elements to export. But instead, we get these two extensions, neither of which are great on their own, and which don’t work well together. What a shame.** | What’s most annoying is that these two extensions are frustratingly close to working well together. Imagine if the Frame extension’s default behaviour was to create real rectangles in a new “slices” layer (with optional padding, of course). Instantly, it becomes an easy way to create the initial slicing rectangles for the Layer Slices extension if you have a lot of elements to export. But instead, we get these two extensions, neither of which are great on their own, and which don’t work well together. What a shame.** | ||
+ | |||
+ | Voilà donc deux des nouvelles extensions. Je déteste être cynique, mais je ne vois pas vraiment d' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ce qui est le plus ennuyeux, c'est que ces deux extensions sont proches de fonctionner bien ensemble, ce qui est frustrant. Imaginez que le comportement par défaut de l' | ||
issue184/inkscape.1661703604.txt.gz · Dernière modification : 2022/08/28 18:20 de d52fr