Reset Bounding Box

[ronnyb]

Often times after editing a vector shape, rotating, etc, the bounding box gets all wonky... it would be great to be able to "reset" the bounding box to a level rectangle, as if the shape were newly drawn from scratch and that the default bounding box was never messed with...

[Gear maker]

ronnyb7 I totally agree.  I did figure out a way and put it in the Tips topic maybe this will help you:

 

"Have you ever created a complex shape but when you finish it had been rotated a few times so the bounding box was all kittywampus.  I had been trying to figure out a way to keep the shape in the proper the orientation but get the transform to show 0 degrees rotation to have a straight bounding box.  Found the easiest way is to draw a rectangle bigger than the shape and totally overlaps it.  Then use the Intersect Operation.  The resulting shape will be zeroed out.  The color will the same as whichever layer is on the bottom.  Multi shape objects need each shape to be done separately."

[lenogre]

You can also draw a second shape, boolean > add. Then delete the second shape with the node tool.

[ronnyb]

Great work-around guys, thanks!

[Ethernaut]

I ran into this problem recently, and would love a solution like a simple "reset" button!

 

The problem with the boolean trick is that if the object is a geometric shape (like a rounded square, a cog, etc.) it would be converted to curves and lose its "procedural" editing features, wouldn't it?

 

Cheers.

[Ben]

Coming soon...

[Ben]

This will be coming in the next Beta.  It will appear as a button on the context toolbar, but for ease of use it is also on the '.' key (full stop, no modifier) - I use this mostly as it's nice and quick.

 

For multiple object selection it will reset the box to a uniform tight bounding box based on the selection contents.

 

For single object selection it will do something special - it will toggle between the objects base box (the distorted box you see if an object has shear or rotation) and a uniform tight box.  If you have transformed your object so that the selection box is rotated or sheared it will always created a uniform box first (even if the current box began as a uniform box) - a second press will take you back to the objects base box.  Note, when you make a new selection with a single object it will still show the distorted base box first.

 

I'm sure it will make sense when people play with it.  It works in the Move tool, Node tool and the Shape tools.

[Gear maker]

Sounds good.  I can't wait!  Thank you Ben.

[retrograde]

Thanks Ben, looking forward to this and all of the great new improvements and/or additions...

[ronnyb]

Nice!!!

[Tazintosh]

If you have transformed your object so that the selection box is rotated or sheared it will always created a uniform box first (even if the current box began as a uniform box) - a second press will take you back to the objects base box.  Note, when you make a new selection with a single object it will still show the distorted base box first.

 

Hi Ben,

 

I was going to create a bug report, but found this topic and discovered that showing first the distorted bounding box was made by design.

The "second press" feature is well thought, really, I can see the potential of it, but more specifically in my workflow, it's not a "beneficial" feature as this prevent the snap I'm expecting etc.: is there any way to make sure to reseted bounding will be definitive?

 

I tried to workaround this, by "converting to curve" etc. with no luck :( How to —really reset— my bounding box?

[MEB]

Hi Tazintosh,

Here's a workaround: draw a rectangle bigger than the object you want to reset the bounding box, then select both and apply an Intersect geometry operation (menu Layer ▸ Geometry ▸ Intersect).

[Tazintosh]

Thanks!!! (I could have thought this one lol)

It's some steps more, but ok.

[Devil_Inside]

Can you guys make the button actually reset the transform rather than toggle between the two modes?

Once I rotated the object, I won't need the old transform again, so it would be useful if I could just loose the old transform.

Maybe shift+clicking that button should quickly reset it once and for all?

[fernandolins86]

I agree that toggling is annoying because if you need to select something else it will go back to the old bounding box and you have to reset it again and again... Not the best process.

[Ben]

Can you guys make the button actually reset the transform rather than toggle between the two modes?

Once I rotated the object, I won't need the old transform again, so it would be useful if I could just loose the old transform.

Maybe shift+clicking that button should quickly reset it once and for all?

 

I'm not sure I follow exactly... It is not a mode toggle.  You can make a series of transformations, then reset the selection box to a uniform box.

 

Note that this only affects the selection box - it does not change the objects internal bounding box and transform.

 

Objects maintain their transforms so that they can be subsequently edited when re-selected - and you can "revert" components of the transform such a rotation or skew.  We intentionally did not follow what other apps do where every time you transform the selection box reverts back to a uniform rectangle (with these apps it's almost impossible to remove rotation or skew once it has been introduced).

 

The selection box toggle gives the best of both worlds in allowing you to get a uniform selection rectangle which can then be used for scaling with snapping.

[fernandolins86]

I'm not sure I follow exactly... It is not a mode toggle.  You can make a series of transformations, then reset the selection box to a uniform box.

 

Note that this only affects the selection box - it does not change the objects internal bounding box and transform.

 

Objects maintain their transforms so that they can be subsequently edited when re-selected - and you can "revert" components of the transform such a rotation or skew.  We intentionally did not follow what other apps do where every time you transform the selection box reverts back to a uniform rectangle (with these apps it's almost impossible to remove rotation or skew once it has been introduced).

 

The selection box toggle gives the best of both worlds in allowing you to get a uniform selection rectangle which can then be used for scaling with snapping.

 

I understand how this can be useful in those cases you mentioned, but even if this behavior is kept, it would be great to have a way to permanently reset the bounding box without having to do work-arounds with add/subtract shape or converting to curves. I would prefer to not have the extra step of resetting the bounding box evey time I need to change the object; I find it very disruptive to a visual composition workflow.

[QuietDesign]

I'm not sure I follow exactly... It is not a mode toggle.  You can make a series of transformations, then reset the selection box to a uniform box.

 

Note that this only affects the selection box - it does not change the objects internal bounding box and transform.

 

Objects maintain their transforms so that they can be subsequently edited when re-selected - and you can "revert" components of the transform such a rotation or skew.  We intentionally did not follow what other apps do where every time you transform the selection box reverts back to a uniform rectangle (with these apps it's almost impossible to remove rotation or skew once it has been introduced).

 

The selection box toggle gives the best of both worlds in allowing you to get a uniform selection rectangle which can then be used for scaling with snapping.

 

 

While I whole heartily appreciate a current accessibility of the bounding box to easily be able to go back and edit the shape (fantastic feature), a permanent reset or an actual toggle mode is a huge request. Please and Thank you.

[Jilly]

I understand how this can be useful in those cases you mentioned, but even if this behavior is kept, it would be great to have a way to permanently reset the bounding box without having to do work-arounds with add/subtract shape or converting to curves. I would prefer to not have the extra step of resetting the bounding box evey time I need to change the object; I find it very disruptive to a visual composition workflow.

 

While I whole heartily appreciate a current accessibility of the bounding box to easily be able to go back and edit the shape (fantastic feature), a permanent reset or an actual toggle mode is a huge request. Please and Thank you.

 

Put me down as one more that wants at least the option to make the reset permanent.

[abject39]

1+

Super annoying that every time I press the reset selection box button, type a value into the transform panel and hit enter the box resets back to what it was. Then I have to hit the reset selection box again and type the next value I want into the transform panel and so on and so on. Super slow and counter productive.

[Bri-Toon]

I'm noticing that clicking the button once will reset the box, and then clicking it again will switch it back to the rotation angle.

 

20171104145953(1).mov

[Bee and Nectar Design]

+1

I'm having issues with this function, too. 

I understand that having the option to toggle between a rotated and a reset bounding box is a good one, but the issue I have is that when I reset the bounding box and then group the shape with another shape, the bounding box automatically resets to the rotated version. That makes it very difficult to accurately set the size of the grouped shape (which is bothersome when trying to unify the size of a set of software icons on a diagram, as I'm currently doing). 

Some ability to permanently reset the bounding box would be helpful.

That said, given that the 'intersect' workaround noted by others previously in the thread works nicely, it's probably not worth dropping a nuke in your dev roadmap just to accommodate this!

[pixeldroid]

Another vote for a permanent option.  The boolean workaround is inconvenient - especially if there is a gradient fill or many objects.  Also, why implement something that requires a hack?

[WhiteX]

Maybe all these replies should convince you @serif that we need a permanent version of the reset-bounding-box feature The temporary one just doesn't cut it for most of the users. Thanks.

[Ben]

This is not as straight forward as you think.

 

Each object has what we call a "base box".  This is essentially the box that defines the bounds of an object, and what is post-transformed to put the object into the correct position.

 

The geometry of some objects are defined by their base box - such a shapes and text.  The internal box is used as the container into which the geometry is created.  Curve objects can easily have their transforms "baked", but for these other dynamic objects, the base box provides a continuing reference for edibility.  So, for example, you can always reselect a shape object and fix it's rotation or shear - you don't lose the transform used to create your shape, or its editability as a shape (as opposed to converting to curves).

 

Another issue is that some shapes and text are adjusted to fit their box based on their absolute positioning and size.  Rounded corners on rectangles are sized based on their on-page base box size and shear.  But, most importantly, the transformed base box ALWAYS contains these rounded corners.

 

Now, if we provided an alternative user-defined box, based on the current transform of a dynamic shape, what happens if you apply a further transform to the shape?  The box you have may no longer contain the geometry as the transform affects the corner geometry which could now grow outside of the user-defined box.  Combining this with snapping, you now have a disconnect between the box edges and the geometry bounds that will be snapped.  I can almost guarantee that users will then complain that "snapping is not accurate" - when what is actually happening is that the geometry bounds and the user-defined selection box are not consistent.

 

If there is to be any more consideration of this issue, I think people will need to provide use cases to illustrate exactly where their problem is.  It might be that it just needs a different approach, but there might also be something we can do.  Bear in mind, however, that we have a wider understanding of the implications of the feature that you may think is trivial.