Is it possible to draw circles centred from two intersecting guides, rather than drawing it and having to move it to snap into the guides after? 

(I have a lot of circles to draw that have to be mm perfect). 

Precise drawing of circles - Nope!  Why would anyone want to do that?  [ been asking for precise drawing for about 10 years. ]

Yes, not sure it is less work though ? 

If you have snap to guides / snap to path intersects / snap to object midpoints on

Also Edit>Preferences>Tools>Geometric Bounding box.

You can draw the circle by holding Ctrl+Shift whilst dragging from the guide intersection point.

Then type into the radius boxes on the top left.

If you are drawing circles, are the sizes repeatable like 10mm, 25mm, 15.2mm etc. There are other ways to do this quickly, like have a preset group of ready made circles either off canvas or as symbols

inklinea

If you are drawing circles, are the sizes repeatable like 10mm, 25mm, 15.2mm etc. There are other ways to do this quickly, like have a preset group of ready made circles either off canvas or as symbols

Yep, only need 5 or 6 sizes between 0.8mm and 5mm as it for PCB works. But talking about 100s of each size in one document. 

Would have to see an example of what you are trying to do.

If you are doing simple things like placing 'n' number of holes on the radius of a circle that is fairly easy to do.

If it's an artistic layout then I suppose not.

I would just make the stroke colour of 0.8, 0.5 etc different so you can drag and snap easily.

When you do the stretching with snap - you may want to remove the stroke before your circle is started [ obvious ] and watch out for elastic scaling.  The snap function might hold the left quadrant to the vertical while stretching to a right vertical - but it may not.  Stretching without the snap will not hold the left quadrant.  So, after your stretch, verify the left side is still where you want it.

I say remove the stroke because if you need to do so later, your overall centering will be off.

Most PCB circles are just fill anyway.

Edit>Preferences>Tools>Geometric Bounding box   Ignores the stroke width.

Yes - faster to set stroke to none.  Then, one does not need to remember to reset the bounding box for the next circle.  And again, and again....

Just info:

In Inkscape 1.1 the bounding box type is a global setting.

Once set, every object existing or new will measured by that setting.

Is is not a per object setting.

When Inkscape is loaded again, it retains that setting too.

@Polygon

Sorry, little bit OT but how do you get this red markers shown in your animation?
Are you using a dev version? Have no clue where to activate this in the current stable build ...

Greetings

Yes - that´s the current 1.2 dev - pretty much every SVG editor has this already. Now it comes to Inkscape. ;-)

Thanks for information ...

inklinea

Would have to see an example of what you are trying to do.

If you are doing simple things like placing 'n' number of holes on the radius of a circle that is fairly easy to do.

If it's an artistic layout then I suppose not.

I would just make the stroke colour of 0.8, 0.5 etc different so you can drag and snap easily.

This is an example of what I'm doing. 

Due to The plugin I'm using to export the files from Inkscape really not liking the original circles drawn in illustrator, I have to use a guide to lock to their Centerpoint and then redraw them in Inkscape on a new layer. So, drawing, resizing and snaping to the guide is a long process for 100's of circles. 

(this one is not too bad, it only has 3mm, 2mm, 1.5mm and 1mm holes.)

https://imgur.com/cGb24Fc

https://imgur.com/ygStmnU

Does converting all the circles to paths help?

There is this kinda buggy method to draw the circles from centre to a point if you are using 1.1. Keep snap to object center and snap to paths turned on; lock the current layer containing the circle 
Create a new layer, use the geometric construction tool to draw circles from centre to path, and after drawing each circle convert them to paths (ctrl+shift+C) (because the tool uses some LPEs which are kind of buggy)

KrIr17

Does converting all the circles to paths help?

Unfortunately not. It's really strange, my svg has 2 of 4 layers just made of circles, one for solder mask and one for the drills holes.....and for the life of me, I don't know why the drill hole one doesn't extort the same as the solder mask one that seems to work fine!?!? 

This is how I would do it.

As mentioned before always have Edit>Preferences>Tools>Geometric Bounding Box    enabled unless you want to take stroke etc into account in measurements.

Object>Symbols panel has the premade symbols in.

They can be dropped onto the canvas, then after dropping, dragged to the intersection ( with snap turned on )

If you hover over the symbols in the symbol panel - it shows you a tooltip for the size. I would have the bigger grid icon on in the bottom right of the symbols panel.

The symbols can be broken apart using Edit>Clones>Unlink clones or similar, the revert back to a group of the circle and text.

The unlinked symbol circle and text have a data-tag, so text has data-hole_text_Xmm and the circles have data-hole_Xmm

So they are searchable later when unlinked if you choose properties and attribute name in inkscape search panel.

This is probably mostly totally unnecessary though :)

@peps1 How are you exporting, and what are you doing to prep for export?

Obviously -

turn off non-exporting layers - turn on the exporting layers [ unlock and visible ]

actually select all of the curves you want to select for export as a selection - never trust an auto selected zone defined by an inkscape command

try changing your colors to black or dark shades - you might be trying to export a gamma or white on white

what sizes are your lines ?  0.1 mm may not look good or be recognizable in an export

etc

Oh, one more thing, professional users of Inkscape are probably NOT using 1.2.  It is not in the standard pipeline and is therefore unreliable.  We who are trying to make $$$ with this software do not have time for unreliable.  If it is in 1.2 - nobody cares.  

The questions are referring to how one uses the "safe, working" iteration as quickly as possible to produce a professional result.  In other words - use 93 version, occasionally test a function in 1+ iteration, and hope the bug which prevents 1+ from opening legacy 93 version files is fixed yesterday.