Smart Star shapes size is not right

[evtonic3]

Why are the smart star shapes bounding boxes extend past the actual size of the shape, and therefore the overall shape size includes this too. This is not the case with other smart shapes.

[Alfred]

If you change the number of points to an even number you should see why this happens, the diameter is fixed and determines the bounding box.

[Ben]

It's because that is not the bounding box.  It's what we call the Base box. That is the box into which we project the shape, and the box you control to initially create the shape.

 

Some shapes are based on a circle, which we project into the Base box. So, the circle centre is always at the centre of the box, then the radius is projected to the top/bottom and left/right edges (which will form an ellipse if the box is not 1:1).

 

This method allows you to create uniform ratio shapes by stretching out a constrained 1:1 box.  If we did not base it on a circle, and filled the box with the shape, the shape would not be 1:1 ratio, and the centre point would jitter as you added or removed points.

 

For snapping and alignment purposes, we allow you to get the tight bounding box by pressing the . (full stop) button.

[Friksel]

Hello @Ben , In my opinion the way it's build now is very counterintuitive and not consistant. Like @evtonic3 I would expect the snapping and stretching of the starshape to work exactly like drawing a rectangle and a circle: stretch and snap to the bounds. I understand we can accomplish this by using the period-key, but it's pretty inefficient and way to much keystrokes and work we have to do each time we want a star to draw and hit the area bounds. In my opinion it should be the other way; shapes should always show the boundingbox and stretch on that. That's what I, and I believe a lot other designers, would expect to happen. Right now it's not only confusing, it's inefficient and therefore frustrating having to do this, which doesn't have to be that way in my opninion.

Anyway, just as a reference I hereby reference to a discussion we were just having on another topic about this. 

I would say please change the behaviour to use the boundingbox, or add an optional keyboard stroke to make it use the boundingbox to stretch immediately while drawing the shape. Rightnow it's too much steps in my opinion and counterintuitive. 

Thanks!

 

[Ben]

Hi, @Friksel

 

I appreciate that you don't agree with how we've done things, but they were done this way for very thought out reasons.  As has been shown - we've tried to define things in terms of circles so that when the number of points changes the shape is still centred.  For your usage that might not be what you expect, but you can cycle through to get the Bounding Box, and then scale that as you see fit.

 

The importance of using a circle is that of keeping true proportions, and centre of rotation.  If I drag out the box while holding Shift - I get a 1:1 base box.  If the shape was not based on the internal circle of this base box, then I cannot achieve a 1:1 proportioned star.  It would always be stretched within the base box.  It's not just the star - we have a number of shapes based on a circle: Polygon, Cog, Pie, Crescent, Double Star, etc.  The logic is the same for all of them.

 

In short - you can do what you want, but it requires you to cycle to the kind of box you want.  You can get true bounding boxes, and you can scale and position based on that.  Converting to curves also gives you a true bounding box, but you lose the dynamic shape.

 

We won't be changing the current logic.  If it wasn't done this way - what would be the intuitive way of creating 1:1 proportioned dynamic shapes??

 

[Mithferion]

I like the way it is right now because this way I have the Rotation Center centered (so to speak...), and if I want to rotate the shape, I won't have to struggle with the alignment of the shape.

Best regards!

[R C-R]

9 minutes ago, Mithferion said:

I like the way it is right now because this way I have the Rotation Center centered (so to speak...), and if I want to rotate the shape, I won't have to struggle with the alignment of the shape.

I also greatly prefer how it works now. One of the reasons is because rotating duplicate shapes around the base box maintains symmetry & alignment, regardless of the number of points, number of sides of a polygon, etc. Rotating around the bounding box won't do that for most regular shapes:

[Mithferion]

6 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I also greatly prefer how it works now. One of the reasons is because rotating duplicate shapes around the base box maintains symmetry & alignment, regardless of the number of points, number of sides of a polygon, etc. Rotating around the bounding box won't do that for most regular shapes:

Totally, but for those who prefer such behaviour, maybe there should an option for those who don't want to hit the Period (.) key to use the Bounding box...

And by the way:

So, here is the heart: ♥

Best regards!

[Friksel]

Thanks for your response @Ben. I appreciate you take the time to answer and explain your view on it and why Serif decided to build it like this.

4 hours ago, Ben said:

@Friksel

If it wasn't done this way - what would be the intuitive way of creating 1:1 proportioned dynamic shapes?? 

I didn't talk about needs to have it 1:1 proportional (I think you mean keep aspect ratio to 1:1 by this?). I want to stretch-draw the shape where the position of the drag-cursor shows the position of the boundingbox of that shape during drag. In my usecase it didn't need to be squared (1:1). But if I needed it I should hold shift during drag-draw. So that would be my view on an intuitive way of creating 1:1 proportioned dynamic shapes.

I understand your view on this and it seems like there are 'two kind of people'/views on this:
1) Having focus on the center of the shape [how it is build now]. With this method all points of a star are connected to a virtual circle, where the center of the shape is always the same as the center of the circle and the shape doesn't move while switching amount of points. If we stretch/draw the shape we in fact keep the center of the shape in the center of the drawarea. Let's call this view: center-focussed.

2) Having focus on the boundingbox of the shape, so treat all shapes the same; like a width and height we can stretch. If we strech/draw the shape we in fact keep the center of the boundingbox in the center of the drawarea, independent of what the center of the shape is. Let's call this view: bounds-focussed.

It's clear to me that both views has its pros and cons. And that both ways are possible in Designer now, where the first is user-optimized and the second takes more steps to accomplish and therefore takes longer. Especially on projects where this happens a lot.

I'm clearly on the second 'camp', but I can also understand where you're/others are coming from and probably there will be situations where the first solution would fit a certain job better for me too. But mostly I would need the second way to do things for my projects, because when I need, for example a star, I want it to be a certain size and snap to bounds. For my use cases I don't care if the shape will stay on the same location when switching starpoints, because I set the amounts of points first and then draw the shape on the exact size and location they way I want it to be. In my mind and workflow that makes the most sense. But again, I understand where you are coming from and that there are usecases for the other method are too.

That said, it's pretty frustrating when you are on 'camp 2' (like me) and find yourself being frustrated all the time, because you first select the amount of points, than draw the star (or other shape) to find yourself not being able to snap the corners of the shape to the bounds/size you want it to be. So than you have to release your mouse, hit period (.) and do another resize of the same shape you just drew. For the projects I work on that's a crazy workflow that will cause frustration easily, especially when working on projects with lots of shapes (like I do for illustration work) and disturbes the fun and is pretty timeconsuming too.

2 hours ago, Mithferion said:

Totally, but for those who prefer such behaviour, maybe there should an option for those who don't want to hit the Period (.) key to use the Bounding box...

So I understand there is a place for the first method and see there are some people like to use it that way and probably there will be situations I would use the same methods for a special case. But I agree with @Mithferion in that it would be best if there would be at least some way to do method 2 (bounds-focussed way) on the first draw, so with some optional keystroke to hold while dragging to draw or resize, to fit my (and I'm sure a lot others) workflow as well. Or else a toggle in the toolsettings making drawing either 'shape center based' or 'boundingbox based'.

Please consider this! Thanks.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Friksel said:

But I agree with @Mithferion in that it would be best if there would be at least some way to do method 2 (bounds-focussed way) on the first draw, so with some optional keystroke to hold while dragging to draw or resize, to fit my (and I'm sure a lot others) workflow as well

Now that you know how this all works, can't you just hit the period key before you start drawing? In other words, it is already the optional keystroke you mentioned

[Friksel]

13 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Now that you know how this all works, can't you just hit the period key before you start drawing? In other words, it is already the optional keystroke you mentioned

That doesn't work that way. You can only hit period AFTER you drag'n'draw the shape and than you have to resize the shape again

[Ben]

On 11/16/2018 at 12:18 PM, R C-R said:

I also greatly prefer how it works now. One of the reasons is because rotating duplicate shapes around the base box maintains symmetry & alignment, regardless of the number of points, number of sides of a polygon, etc. Rotating around the bounding box won't do that for most regular shapes:

 

That is exactly why we use the circle approach. You can also mix up shapes (such as the star, cog and polygon) - and they will follow the same rotation centre if the base boxes match.  This would not be possible if we expanded the shape fully into the base box.

 

Bear in mind these are dynamic shapes.  A lot of other apps just give you clip art.  Once placed, there is no control over the shape.  We have opted to keep dynamic shapes live - and part of that involves being able to preserve the centre of rotation and logical radius while adjusting the parameters.