• I was about to submit a bug report but wanted to try understand if there is some other logic here.

    Using the shapes actor you can adjust the number of sides. If I set it to the max (to make an ellipse for example) and set the size to a width of 40 and height of 20 I would have expected that the height and width of the elipse would be the same as the height and width of a rectangle with the same settings. 

    However it seems like this is programmed so that the resulting shape can contain a rectangle of the width and height settings. Although I could see some cases where this is useful, I would think it more logical to have the actual width and actual height of the resulting shape be what I put in. I am often working against isadoras use of percentages to define coordinates (although I have found it saved me from work on a few occasions so I get it). If I want to define a circle with a precise location and size in pixels, even when using a calculator to work this out from the default processing resolution, it becomes very difficult with the current system.

    Am I alone in thinking that the height and width of a shape should be consistent no matter how many faces it has? Is it meant to be like this or is it a bug. I would guess that if it is made consistent then old patches would need adjusting as the shapes would come out different sizes.

  • Tech Staff


    You can change the behavior using the 'inside' input.
    To have a Rect and Oval paired up the way you outline, the Non Rect, needs to be set to 'inside' = On

  • @DusX 

    With the Inside set to On, the shapes correlate with width and height a little more closely, but its still not accurate until you get to 24 facets or more. Please see the attached movie.

    edit: i don't think the file attached, so i uploaded it to youtube: 

  • @dusx cool, I did not even try that- of course mark thought of almost everything.