This is a first in a series of suggestions that focus solely on Shaping. Other suggestion topics that are imperatives to achieve true design production efficiency, second only to Shaping, are Transformation, Navigation and Arrangement. All other topics, though important, have more marginal effects on design production optimization.
The first and most important factor of creative efficiency is to grant the user greater control based on natural intuitive perception of discrete objects. To do this, analyze each discrete object (human-witnessable object, whether or not it's programmatically identified as an object), in this case Nodes and Segments both controlled by the relationship of Control Point pairs (Siblings or Peers). Below are all possible, logical relationships of CPs in controlling the shape of a path.
Since virtually all vector design work employs Shaping of a Path and Shaping constitutes approximately 65% of all user events to achieve a finished object, it is imperative that Shaping be seriously addressed in future versions in order to achieve the greatest time savings in design production.
Path Shaping
Node Types (relationship between sibling Control Points of a single parent Node)
Asymmetrical Smooth (existing)cp1º <> cp2º; cp1L <> cp2L Symmetrical Smooth (existing)cp1º = cp2º-180º; cp1L = cp2L Asymmetrical Cusp (existing)cp1º <> cp2º; cp1L <> cp2L Symmetrical Cusp (NEW)cp1º = cp2º(inverted on Node's Y Axis); cp1L = cp2L Segment Types (relationship between peer Control Points of sibling Nodes of a Segment)
Straight Line (existing)cp1º = cp2º = 0; cp1L = cp2L = 0 Asymmetrical Curve (existing)cp1º <> cp2º; cp1L <> cp2L Symmetrical Curve (NEW)cp1º = cp2º (inverted on Segment's Y Axis); cp1L = cp2L Symmetrical Wave (NEW)cp1º = cp2º (inverted on Segment's X Axis); cp1L = cp2L Radius Curve (NEW)cp1º (limited) = cp2º (limited); cp1L (limited) = cp2L (limited)Controlled by dragging (or parametric values) of Segment Origin to establish radius
That is it for Path Shaping #1 -- Types
Is this related?
New node type or a new modifier to the cusp node.
Yes, the link you provided is exactly to what I am referring, but only regarding the Symmetrical Cusp.
There are still the matters of controlling the Segment with aspects of symmetry as described in my original post where peer node control points have a specially bound relationship; not just the relationship between sibling control points of a single parent node (which is what a symmetrical cusp is).
I have experienced hundreds of situations where what I am proposing would have cut my design time by at least 30% (mostly by ensuring accuracy, consistency and total alleviation of the painfully tedious "fudge factor"). Just to use your heart example and creating it from scratch. Your method would take approximately 8 clicks/events with more to do to close just to make a simple shape. Plus with current/your method, everything you create would have to start oriented with terminal nodes perfectly in alignment along the vertical/horizontal of each other or any joining would not work properly (especially if using the clone method for symmetry). My method would take approximately 5 clicks/events to create the basic heart fully closed AND can be done on any rotational orientation of any Node or Segment as many times as desired along at entire path of an object regardless if it is closed or not.
Of course anything desired can be accomplished with the current tools in CorelDRAW. However, the current set of controls in CorelDRAW, requires several more steps to accomplish and many more steps to maintain control when editing. I'm focusing on creating the single shortest route toward the greatest flexibility and control as possible. I do a click-by-click analysis of each method to achieve a result, and for Corel to implement a feature at the elemental level (e.g., Nodes, Control Points and Segments) will afford the user the greatest level of overall control regardless of what kind of object is being designed and save tremendously by not having to call multiple tools and menu commands just to achieve it.
Wait until I get the rest of the shaping features posted. You'll see just how far a designer can go with so few steps currently unattainable with current CorelDRAW and Illustrator or any other vector application on the market.
Mark said:I have experienced hundreds of situations where what I am proposing would have cut my design time by at least 30% (mostly by ensuring accuracy, consistency and total alleviation of the painfully tedious "fudge factor").
Example from the "Virtual Segment Draw".
Great ideas, Mark. A little problem is that you posted equations and numbers, we need visuals.
Check what the Polygon tool can achieve in symmetry : Challenge 11 off the wall polygon tutorial.
I count every tool change and keystroke as a user event. The more clicks, keystrokes and commands used, the less efficient the process. This is how the current method is to produce a heart following your basic outline of how-to.
Sorry, I use my own annotations. It speeds its writing and increases consistency in my writing thus helping me to trace the results of feature design. If you need a key, let me know. I'll post it for you. Also note: I know there are multiple ways to call a tool (a quick-key, click of a button, double click on the object). Each of these calls still count as one user event, so there is no increasing/decreasing of required user events by way of the button click method employed above and below.
Whereas my method:
Sorry, I missed counted with my earlier post. I just did it off the top of my head. Still, with this feature fewer steps are needed to accomplish the heart. The object is already closed and symmetrical. And with this feature you don't have to do any aligning of nodes just to achieve connectivity. This method can be done at any angle and still have a closed, editable/fillable object. Also, with this method there wouldn't be a need to employ the more processor intensive Smart Fill and Cloning. Although I'm definitely not questioning those features at all. Those are great and necessary features. I'm just proposing a more direct method to get from A to B for creating a simple symmetical shape.
Also note that such simple shapes afford little comparison to assess efficiencies of design methods. The efficiencies are best realized in more complex objects. Again, wait until I post the other Shaping features. Eventually, you'll see the synergistic effect on efficiency with employment of the several new features I will post.
With regards to the plane of symmetry: All planes are automatically assigned to each human identifiable element, essentially, every Node has an Axis where the X Axis is tangent to its path. Segments have an Axis where the X Axis is the chord connecting the two parent Nodes that construct the Segment. This is how the human eye sees the orientation of shapes, and hense is more intuitive to work with. The Axes are only calculated at the time of selection of the element and pertinent only when shaping is being done, then is dropped when deselected. This way the file size does not inflate and the load on the processor is only temporary during shaping only.
I have to argue your last paragraph. How many times have designers used asymmetrical constructions to produce a pattern that within that pattern are oddly arranged aspects of symmetry (e.g., Spirographic-like effects, Kaleidoscope, Sin waves not on any H or V axis, complexly curved polygons (beyond that of the simple star/polygon object))? I've been called to do many times things of this nature. How many hours have I wasted having to construct these in such convoluted ways and then have to tediously massage and reshape trying to maintain the look of symmetry within an object if an edit had to be performed (which inevitably there were edits). Cloning just CANNOT achieve such constructions. Whereby simply adding the features where mathematically bound relationships between Sibling Control Points and Peer Control Points would have cut construction and editing time by 30%. I fail to see how any designer would consider such direct and intuitive control over their drawings unnecessary. Shaping constitutes a VERY LARGE portion of the design process. Profound shaping control is vital to realizing efficiency, so you can get home in time to see your kids soccer game, meet a clients deadline, or have more time to add new client work to your docket.
Lastly, I'm not questioning the Smart Fill. That is a vital tool. It definitely has to be dynamic as you suggest. I see many situations for such a feature. I'm just defending my feature suggestion.
Regards,
Mark