When I create orientation points, and add a tool to a drawing, the O Points arrows and text, and the Tool properties box are immense. My image might be 6" x 6", but the O.Ps. and Tool box are 100"+ long on the drawing. 'Document Properties' are as shown in 1st attachment (These are the settings I have to use for 'Path to G Code' to generate accurate moves). 2nd attachment is a screenshot of orientation points on a 5" x 5.5" image (red box). Any help is appreciated; I'm not adverse to editing .py files.
One problem Is see is that you have the Scale set wrongly in Document Properites. Unless someone knows what they are doing, they should never touch that Scale setting. Here's how to fix it.
switch the Display Units (at the very top) to px
set the Scale to 1.0
re-set the Display Units to inches (or whatever you want
don't touch the Scale setting anymore -- Yes, it changes when you change the units. That's just Inkscape working to keep your document in the proper scale. Just ignore it.
I don't actually know if that will fix your problem with the huge text, but there's a good chance it will. If it doesn't, post back again, and we can troubleshoot further. It could also be a setting in the Orientation Points extension, that needs to be fixed. Or maybe even something else. It's hard to say until the scale issue is fixed.
As I said, the 'Document Properties' that I use produces accurate g code, in inches, for my CNC router; the default settings generate g code in mm, which I don't want. Even with default settings, the orientation points and tool box are abnormally large in relation to the drawing. The attached pic shows the results with default doc properties. As you can see, 'scale' is 25.4, which is the correct number of mm. per inch. Unfortunately, the g code generated is in mm, and I don't want to work in mm. I was a machinist, both manual and CNC, for 35 years, and I prefer to work with inches. You will notice; in the top toolbar, X and Y start coordinates are both '-.001'; they should be 0,000. The width and height are also inaccurate; the square is 3" on each side. This is another unwanted bug when using the default doc properties.
I can use the settings that I know will work for generating accurate g code; is there a file I can edit in order to make the orientation poits and tool box sizes much smaller?
I did not suggest to use mm. I gave you instructions how to use inches with the proper scale setting.
I notice in your screenshot that the text (orientation points) looks more normal this way.
If your document is set for inches, the gcode should be giving inches. If it's not giving inches, then there must be a bug. Although at the top of the gcode file, in your screenshot, it says "All units in inches".
Where do you see that it's giving mm in the gcode?
The discrepancy on the control bar (with X, Y, W and H) might be related to the bounding box setting. Do you know offhand whether you're using geometric or visual bounding box? If not, try Edit menu > Preferences > Tools. Click on Tools then look on the right side of the window, and click Geometric Bounding Box.
The visual bounding box includes the stroke width in measurements, and often causes tiny size or placement discrepancies. When you changed the units with the proper scale, it caused the object size/placement to change slightly, and that introduced the changes that you see on the control bar. But you can easiliy fix that (and it will stay fixed, if you switch to geometric bb).
The geometric bb does not include the stroke width in measurements or placements.
Yes, the text looks 'more normal', but still unusually large, compared to the drawing size. In previous versions of Inkscape, the text and tools properties box were much smaller (They didn't display on top of the actual drawing). I know your explanation was for inches; however, it seems that the program calculates in mm, thus, the number '25.400' in the scaling field. If you look at the g code generated, you'll notice that the X and Y moves to cut the square are "G01 X 76.1746 Y 76.1746 Z-.0252" 76.1746 / 25.4 = 2.9999 (3 inches). As I said, the square in the image is 3 inches on a side. The 'G20' command in the program header tells the machine that all dimensions are in inches; the code generated is not. My CNC router doesn't have 76 inches of travel, nor do most commercial CNC machining centers. The only move the g code has right is the Z depth, probably because that is designated in the Tools Library text box.
Now, I can make Inkscape generate g code in inches, using what you consider to be 'wrong' doc properties/scaling settings. And, I thank you for the tip about checking the geometric bounding box; that should correct that minor annoyance. I am still left with the oversized O.Pts. text and Tools Library box. I can work arould this, but it's a pain sometimes. I ask again; is there an edit I can make in one of the program's .py files to set a default size limit on these elements? Are you familiar with editing these files? Thanks.
it seems that the program calculates in mm, thus, the number '25.400' in the scaling field.
That's not what it means.
A new feature, a couple of versions ago (which I personally despise) makes Inkscape's native units mm. So now we have this stupid Scale setting, which most people don't (really can't) understand. If we kept Inkscape's native units pixels, we would not have this stupid Scale setting, and we would not have to have these discussions. (It's a computer program after all - pixels should be a no brainer!) I've made a request to return to using px as native units, but I don't think there's much chance of that happening (not anytime soon, anyway). I've also made a request to hide the Scale setting, so that users don't get confused about it (which they do ALL the time). It should be hidden behind an "advanced setup" button, or something like that.
So while Inkscape's native units are mm, we have this Scale setting to allow other units to still be used in Inkscape. That's what that setting does. It does not make your drawing in mm. It's how Inkscape allows you to use inches (or other units) despite the stupid native mm units.
When you cut with this gcode, isn't your result the correct size?
I assume it would be entirely possible to hack the extension, and make it work like you want. But I don't have that kind of knowledge or skills. Maybe someone else will reply, who does? But I would certainly make a test run with the generated gcdoe and the cutter, to make sure whether it's giving you the result you want, or not, before you go to the trouble of hacking.
I'm a little confused with your mention of 76 inches, because the projects you discussed were 5 and 3 inches. What part is 76 inches?
Lol. Well, I speak fluent Gcode; that's the language that CNC machines use to move a tool in the correct paths to cut parts. I spent 10 of my 35 years as a machinist on CNC machines, so I don't have any problems with that aspect. Perhaps I can help you to understand the situation with Inkscape's 'scaling' problems a bit more:
Inkscape's default units are now mm. And that is why the number in the scaling field is 25.4. You see, when converting mm to inches, you divide the mm dimensions by 25.4, to get the measurment in inches. That is well known to us machinists. When Inkscape used px as it's default unit, the number in the scaling field was 96.000, because that's how many pixels there are in an inch. That produced even larger, incorrect numbers in the 'Path to Gcode' output. The fault is in the 'Path to Gcode' extension, which is obviously not coded correctly to generate the Gcode dimensions in inches.
The drawing I used as an example is a 3" X 3" square, with a 2.5" circle inside of it. so, 3 (inches) x 25.4 (mm per inch) = 76.2, which the Gcode extension calculates as 76.1746. (See attachment). Confusing, isn't it? Lol.
I was hoping that there might be someone on this forum conversant with Inkscape's source files , that could point me in the right direction to modify the oversized elements I originally asked about. As I've said, I can work around the scaling glitch, and the huge O.Points, but it's a pain at times. I guess I'll see if someone over at GitHub can help me out.
Thanks again for your time, and have a Merry Christmas!
The drawing I used as an example is a 3" X 3" square, with a 2.5" circle inside of it. so, 3 (inches) x 25.4 (mm per inch) = 76.2, which the Gcode extension calculates as 76.1746.
But 3 inches x 25.4 mm/inch = 76.2 mm. Not 76.2 inches.
_____________________________________________
Someone may well answer your message here, after they see that I've been unable to help. Assuming they agree there's a problem....personally I'm not sure, and it's right at "head level" for me - almost over my head. But give it a more little time.
There may well be some kind of problem with those extensions. The authors stopped supporting them shortly after they were added to Inkscape. We can't get help from them, no matter how hard we try. So it's up to someone else, if something needs to be fixed.
Hi @rstrub , I'd like to ask you to test the latest beta version of the extension, with the latest beta version of Inkscape - because I don't think extensions will still get updates for the 0.92.x series, and the 1.0 release is getting closer.
It's vital that someone tests the latest gcode extension (it has been completely overhauled), because none of our developers know enough about it to be able to test it in depth. We have tried to do some outreach, to get people who can verify if it is still working, so we can release it with more confidence, but we had little to no replies - even though many rely on the extension, even in their business.
That said, did you know you can use a px template, too? File > New from template > default px .
I've downloaded the .zip file from the link you posted; I presume all I need to do is extract those files into the C:\Program Files\Inkscape\share\extensions directory, correct? I've already renamed the old extensions directory, so I can recover the previous extensions if this version doesn't work.
Also, not interested in a px template. As I've mentioned, I prefer to work with inches.
Mmmh. It's not ideal to test the latest extensions with Inkscape 0.92.4. I think that won't work for some extensions that use interface elements that aren't supported - also, it's better to use Python3 with those new extensions. Make sure to use the beta2 to get a better impression.
Windows 10 Build 1909. If you can point me to links to download the recommended Inkscape/Python versions, I'll give them a shot. I prefer installation files; I'm not big on source code stuff.
It already contains a rather up-to-date version of the extensions, you'd only need to update them for testing - after someone has worked on fixing issues with the extension that you have reported.
Beginners' Questions Orientation Points and Tool dialog box are HUGE!
Inkscape.org
When I create orientation points, and add a tool to a drawing, the O Points arrows and text, and the Tool properties box are immense. My image might be 6" x 6", but the O.Ps. and Tool box are 100"+ long on the drawing. 'Document Properties' are as shown in 1st attachment (These are the settings I have to use for 'Path to G Code' to generate accurate moves). 2nd attachment is a screenshot of orientation points on a 5" x 5.5" image (red box). Any help is appreciated; I'm not adverse to editing .py files.
Welcome to the forum!
One problem Is see is that you have the Scale set wrongly in Document Properites. Unless someone knows what they are doing, they should never touch that Scale setting. Here's how to fix it.
I don't actually know if that will fix your problem with the huge text, but there's a good chance it will. If it doesn't, post back again, and we can troubleshoot further. It could also be a setting in the Orientation Points extension, that needs to be fixed. Or maybe even something else. It's hard to say until the scale issue is fixed.
As I said, the 'Document Properties' that I use produces accurate g code, in inches, for my CNC router; the default settings generate g code in mm, which I don't want. Even with default settings, the orientation points and tool box are abnormally large in relation to the drawing. The attached pic shows the results with default doc properties. As you can see, 'scale' is 25.4, which is the correct number of mm. per inch. Unfortunately, the g code generated is in mm, and I don't want to work in mm. I was a machinist, both manual and CNC, for 35 years, and I prefer to work with inches. You will notice; in the top toolbar, X and Y start coordinates are both '-.001'; they should be 0,000. The width and height are also inaccurate; the square is 3" on each side. This is another unwanted bug when using the default doc properties.
I can use the settings that I know will work for generating accurate g code; is there a file I can edit in order to make the orientation poits and tool box sizes much smaller?
I did not suggest to use mm. I gave you instructions how to use inches with the proper scale setting.
I notice in your screenshot that the text (orientation points) looks more normal this way.
If your document is set for inches, the gcode should be giving inches. If it's not giving inches, then there must be a bug. Although at the top of the gcode file, in your screenshot, it says "All units in inches".
Where do you see that it's giving mm in the gcode?
The discrepancy on the control bar (with X, Y, W and H) might be related to the bounding box setting. Do you know offhand whether you're using geometric or visual bounding box? If not, try Edit menu > Preferences > Tools. Click on Tools then look on the right side of the window, and click Geometric Bounding Box.
The visual bounding box includes the stroke width in measurements, and often causes tiny size or placement discrepancies. When you changed the units with the proper scale, it caused the object size/placement to change slightly, and that introduced the changes that you see on the control bar. But you can easiliy fix that (and it will stay fixed, if you switch to geometric bb).
The geometric bb does not include the stroke width in measurements or placements.
Yes, the text looks 'more normal', but still unusually large, compared to the drawing size. In previous versions of Inkscape, the text and tools properties box were much smaller (They didn't display on top of the actual drawing). I know your explanation was for inches; however, it seems that the program calculates in mm, thus, the number '25.400' in the scaling field. If you look at the g code generated, you'll notice that the X and Y moves to cut the square are "G01 X 76.1746 Y 76.1746 Z-.0252" 76.1746 / 25.4 = 2.9999 (3 inches). As I said, the square in the image is 3 inches on a side. The 'G20' command in the program header tells the machine that all dimensions are in inches; the code generated is not. My CNC router doesn't have 76 inches of travel, nor do most commercial CNC machining centers. The only move the g code has right is the Z depth, probably because that is designated in the Tools Library text box.
Now, I can make Inkscape generate g code in inches, using what you consider to be 'wrong' doc properties/scaling settings. And, I thank you for the tip about checking the geometric bounding box; that should correct that minor annoyance. I am still left with the oversized O.Pts. text and Tools Library box. I can work arould this, but it's a pain sometimes. I ask again; is there an edit I can make in one of the program's .py files to set a default size limit on these elements? Are you familiar with editing these files? Thanks.
You're welcome.
I can't discuss gcode itself with you, because I don't know anything about it.
That's not what it means.
A new feature, a couple of versions ago (which I personally despise) makes Inkscape's native units mm. So now we have this stupid Scale setting, which most people don't (really can't) understand. If we kept Inkscape's native units pixels, we would not have this stupid Scale setting, and we would not have to have these discussions. (It's a computer program after all - pixels should be a no brainer!) I've made a request to return to using px as native units, but I don't think there's much chance of that happening (not anytime soon, anyway). I've also made a request to hide the Scale setting, so that users don't get confused about it (which they do ALL the time). It should be hidden behind an "advanced setup" button, or something like that.
So while Inkscape's native units are mm, we have this Scale setting to allow other units to still be used in Inkscape. That's what that setting does. It does not make your drawing in mm. It's how Inkscape allows you to use inches (or other units) despite the stupid native mm units.
When you cut with this gcode, isn't your result the correct size?
I assume it would be entirely possible to hack the extension, and make it work like you want. But I don't have that kind of knowledge or skills. Maybe someone else will reply, who does? But I would certainly make a test run with the generated gcdoe and the cutter, to make sure whether it's giving you the result you want, or not, before you go to the trouble of hacking.
I'm a little confused with your mention of 76 inches, because the projects you discussed were 5 and 3 inches. What part is 76 inches?
Brynn,
Lol. Well, I speak fluent Gcode; that's the language that CNC machines use to move a tool in the correct paths to cut parts. I spent 10 of my 35 years as a machinist on CNC machines, so I don't have any problems with that aspect. Perhaps I can help you to understand the situation with Inkscape's 'scaling' problems a bit more:
Inkscape's default units are now mm. And that is why the number in the scaling field is 25.4. You see, when converting mm to inches, you divide the mm dimensions by 25.4, to get the measurment in inches. That is well known to us machinists. When Inkscape used px as it's default unit, the number in the scaling field was 96.000, because that's how many pixels there are in an inch. That produced even larger, incorrect numbers in the 'Path to Gcode' output. The fault is in the 'Path to Gcode' extension, which is obviously not coded correctly to generate the Gcode dimensions in inches.
The drawing I used as an example is a 3" X 3" square, with a 2.5" circle inside of it. so, 3 (inches) x 25.4 (mm per inch) = 76.2, which the Gcode extension calculates as 76.1746. (See attachment). Confusing, isn't it? Lol.
I was hoping that there might be someone on this forum conversant with Inkscape's source files , that could point me in the right direction to modify the oversized elements I originally asked about. As I've said, I can work around the scaling glitch, and the huge O.Points, but it's a pain at times. I guess I'll see if someone over at GitHub can help me out.
Thanks again for your time, and have a Merry Christmas!
Oh, I completely understand what 25.4 in the Scale setting means.
When Inkscape used px as the default unit, there was no Scale setting at all!
But 3 inches x 25.4 mm/inch = 76.2 mm. Not 76.2 inches.
_____________________________________________
Someone may well answer your message here, after they see that I've been unable to help. Assuming they agree there's a problem....personally I'm not sure, and it's right at "head level" for me - almost over my head. But give it a more little time.
Otherwise, you could try filing a bug report, if you think it rises to the level of a bug. Info here: https://inkscape.org/forums/beyond/how-to-report-bugs-or-request-new-features/
There may well be some kind of problem with those extensions. The authors stopped supporting them shortly after they were added to Inkscape. We can't get help from them, no matter how hard we try. So it's up to someone else, if something needs to be fixed.
Hi @rstrub , I'd like to ask you to test the latest beta version of the extension, with the latest beta version of Inkscape - because I don't think extensions will still get updates for the 0.92.x series, and the 1.0 release is getting closer.
If that still has the bug, or other bugs, please report them at https://gitlab.com/inkscape/extensions.
It's vital that someone tests the latest gcode extension (it has been completely overhauled), because none of our developers know enough about it to be able to test it in depth. We have tried to do some outreach, to get people who can verify if it is still working, so we can release it with more confidence, but we had little to no replies - even though many rely on the extension, even in their business.
That said, did you know you can use a px template, too? File > New from template > default px .
Hi Maren,
I've downloaded the .zip file from the link you posted; I presume all I need to do is extract those files into the C:\Program Files\Inkscape\share\extensions directory, correct? I've already renamed the old extensions directory, so I can recover the previous extensions if this version doesn't work.
Also, not interested in a px template. As I've mentioned, I prefer to work with inches.
Mmmh. It's not ideal to test the latest extensions with Inkscape 0.92.4. I think that won't work for some extensions that use interface elements that aren't supported - also, it's better to use Python3 with those new extensions. Make sure to use the beta2 to get a better impression.
What's you operating system?
Windows 10 Build 1909. If you can point me to links to download the recommended Inkscape/Python versions, I'll give them a shot. I prefer installation files; I'm not big on source code stuff.
You can use the zip file, no installation required: https://inkscape.org/release/inkscape-1.0/?latest=1
It already contains a rather up-to-date version of the extensions, you'd only need to update them for testing - after someone has worked on fixing issues with the extension that you have reported.
Any updates @rstrub ?
I have the same issue. Did you solve it???