Hi, this is my first post - my apologies if this is not the right place to ask. I have a shrinking problem (see attached image). When I define a path I would like to define another exactly parallel to it (like the red one in the image. I think in previous versions this worked by hitting crtl + ). Now the path always closes and the start and end points are moving significantly. To illustrate it better I moved up the upper black parallel path further up, originally it has the same distance to the original lower black curve as the red one.
How do I get the red curve instead of the black one?
I think I have a shrinking problem - do I need a shrink? :-)
I've tried this in version 0.9.3 of Inkscape, behaves the same.
I don't think it can be disabled.
One solution is to extrapolate the line at the ends after disposing of the horizontal section.
It's easy to do using snap to nodes and snap to path. The scale the extrapolated piece to a horizontal guide line level with the original ( unaltered line )
Thanks! Not sure, but unless extrapolation is not a separate tool, I think that is what I did to generate the red curve. Not sure what was intended by the shrinking tool. I thought it was made to generate a path so that the new points of the new curve have everywhere the same perpendicular distance to the original path. If so, then the start and and point should not move as much as they do. Maybe some extension can help to correct this. Well anyway inkscape is a great program. Thanks for tanking the time to answer my question.
What if you duplicated your path, added a stroke to it that matches the distance between the two paths you want, then convert stroke to path? Granted, results at sharp corners might not be optimal. Or even better yet, there's an Offset path effect that lets you specify the exact offset amount.
> What if you duplicated your path, added a stroke to it that matches the distance between the two paths you want, then convert stroke to path?
Thanks for the tip!
Yes I think that might work, that way however I think one generates an inset and an outset path at the same time, one of which has to be removed later. I think this is currently the most viable way to do it.
The offset or inset -effect is what I had used to begin with, where the start and end points moved too much.
Beyond the Basics Shrinking problem
Inkscape.org
Hi, this is my first post - my apologies if this is not the right place to ask. I have a shrinking problem (see attached image). When I define a path I would like to define another exactly parallel to it (like the red one in the image. I think in previous versions this worked by hitting crtl + ). Now the path always closes and the start and end points are moving significantly. To illustrate it better I moved up the upper black parallel path further up, originally it has the same distance to the original lower black curve as the red one.
How do I get the red curve instead of the black one?
I think I have a shrinking problem - do I need a shrink? :-)
Thanks for your help!
I've tried this in version 0.9.3 of Inkscape, behaves the same.
I don't think it can be disabled.
One solution is to extrapolate the line at the ends after disposing of the horizontal section.
It's easy to do using snap to nodes and snap to path. The scale the extrapolated piece to a horizontal guide line level with the original ( unaltered line )
Thanks! Not sure, but unless extrapolation is not a separate tool, I think that is what I did to generate the red curve. Not sure what was intended by the shrinking tool. I thought it was made to generate a path so that the new points of the new curve have everywhere the same perpendicular distance to the original path. If so, then the start and and point should not move as much as they do. Maybe some extension can help to correct this. Well anyway inkscape is a great program. Thanks for tanking the time to answer my question.
taking the time that is!
What if you duplicated your path, added a stroke to it that matches the distance between the two paths you want, then convert stroke to path? Granted, results at sharp corners might not be optimal. Or even better yet, there's an Offset path effect that lets you specify the exact offset amount.
> What if you duplicated your path, added a stroke to it that matches the distance between the two paths you want, then convert stroke to path?
Thanks for the tip!
Yes I think that might work, that way however I think one generates an inset and an outset path at the same time, one of which has to be removed later. I think this is currently the most viable way to do it.
The offset or inset -effect is what I had used to begin with, where the start and end points moved too much.