Hi,

This is my very first post on the forum.

I have some troubles when I use a very thin line (0,01mm which is required at ponoko).

Let me explain:
- I make a rectangle
- I duplicate this rectangle
- I select both rectangles
- Using Rows And Columns I want to put one rectangle next to the other with 0 space between (reed the 2 sides on top of eachother)

The result is that there is a space between the 2.

I think that the cause is that the actual rectangle (dashed line) is bigger than the drawn rectangle on the screen. Because it looks like the 2 dashed lines are on top of each other.

Here is a screenshot: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/n ... directlink

What am I actually trying to do: I want to reduce the number of cuttings and by placing cutlines over each other you have less cutting to do.

Maybe it is just a problem of the way things are drawn on the screen by inkscape, is there a solution to that? Are the actual coordinates of the line correct (on top of each other)?

Added another screenshot: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Z ... directlink

Just checked with the coördinates and based on that it looks correct.

Welcome to InkscapeForum!

Would you please translate and post what the status bar says about the selected blue rectangle? It's too blurry to read, and it looks like it might be in a non-English language. I do see how the bounding box (the dashed line around the object) shows a larger object than what is visible. The first thing I would do, in this situation, is look to the status bar to tell me more about the selection. There are certain things that will cause the bbox to look larger than the object. But I can't read the status bar in that screenshot. So if you could translate for me, I'll know more about it.

Someone else, not too long ago, mentioned ponoko, which if I recall is about automated wood cutting (maybe with CNC router??). If that's the case, your attempt to reduce the amount of cutting by overlapping lines might not be successful. As far as I understand, the cutting is done along the paths. So if a path exists, it seems to me that the machine is going to try and cut it, whether there is any material still existing in that area, or not.

If that's the case, what you'll want to do is have a bunch of....let's say "square Cs", meaning rectangles without the right side, all connected together, with a whole rectangle on the left end....unless it's just 2 columns -- for just 2 columns, it would be 1 C and 1 rectangle, snapped together. And also....unless the machine software requires closed paths?? If it requires closed paths for cutting, you probably won't be able the save any cutting, even with overlapping rectangles. ....Well....ummmm....well, if the machine's software is smart enough to know not to cut along a path, if there is no material in the area, then that will be an exellent plan!

And let me ask another question. Are the objects in the columns all the same width, or do you have different sizes and/or shapes. If the objects in any column have different widths, then only the widest ones....and only if the widest objects are in the same row, will the sides overlap. If it's just 2 columns, you may be able to force the sides to touch, by aligning the left column to the right side and right column to the left side, even if they objects have different widths. Or you could do the same thing with pairs of columns, if you understand what I mean.

Actually I'm glad I ran into this message, because Rows and Columns may be a good solution to another message. I'm always forgetting about Inkscape's Rows and Columns feature !

Anyway, let us know what the status bar says in the screenshot, and we'll know more about what might be happening

Hi,
Thanks you for your quick reply.

Yes, it is the purpose to erase lines that are over each other. I will have +/-2x 120 rectangulars (2 different sizes I mean with 2x), so if I can share the sides I can almost reduce the make cost by 50%. This is the tutorial on this on the ponoko website: http://www.ponoko.com/starter-kits/inks ... uble-lines

Have you seen my second post? It was delayed because it needs verification I think. So if you look at the coordinates of the rectangulars everything look correct.

Thanks!

I'm sorry that I can't see any details in your screenshots. The 2nd one is worse than the 1st, and I have no idea what would make them so blurry. What I'm concerned about is the bounding box being offset from the blue paths. They should not be that way. So if you can tell me either what the status bar says when you select one of the rectangles, or upload the SVG file, I'll have the details I need. Actually the SVG file would be better.

Uummm....the blue lines are the paths right? Or are they white, for some reason?

I see that the tutorial is saying the same thing I was saying, only using different words. And in fact, it is instructing you to do just what I was thinking (except it's removing lines after drawing them, and I was saying draw them without he lines to begin with). I can tell you a faster way to delete those overlapping lines. But first, we need to figure out what's causing the offset.

Would you be able to show us the SVG file?

Edit
Although now that I think about it, even with the SVG file, I still might need help translating the status bar

Sorry, forgot to post the translation, nothing special (I think):

Rectangle in layer Your Design. Click on the selection to change between rotate and resize.

The blue lines are the paths, I changed the rectangle "from object to path" and see what happens:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/l ... directlink

Now zoomed in on the edge, increasing the linesize of both rectangles to 0,035mm you'll see the line is nearing the dashed rectangle:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/i ... directlink

And then reduced back one of the 2 to 0,01mm: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/S ... directlink

If you have a way to solve this and speed up the process to delete the lines that are over each other: more then welcome! To solve the last problem I make an L shaped rectangle and copy it 39 times, then with cols and rows put them 0 space out of each other, then group the created column and copy the colums 3 times and again with with cols and roms put the 0 space out of each other: 120 "L-shaped" rectangles.

Thanks!

Hello

mmm... Let's see : 0.01 mm = 0.035px. I said that because It seems to me that is a inkscape rendering problem. When the stroke is less than 1px, inkscape has problems to render that thin line correctly. Or maybe it's not a problem, I don't know. Maybe I'm not using the correct words.

Let's test it, draw a rectangle and then reduce the stroke less than 1 px (1 pixel); later duplicate the rectangle and align the original and the copy using the BOUNDING BOX SNAPS. And we see that there is a gap between the two rectangles.

Now, align those two rectangles using NODES SNAP. And we see that the rectangles are aligned to the corners of the rectangle. The gap disapears. So It's better to use this method.

I see that you solved your problem, but you ask for a way to accelerate the work.
Now, I think you try to do it's some kind of mosaic, a tesselation. So, you could use the Tiled Clones in the Edit Menu. It's difficult to me explain all the process. Look at the tavmjong's tutorials in the internet. In any case, using your shape with your thinned stroke, the strokes of your cloned shape change (a bug, i think, and i'm using inkscape 0.48.4!). Selecting all those cloned shapes and changing the stroke to 0.01 mm should solve that problem.

Fascinating!!
When I change my line width to 0.01 mm, I get the exact same gap between bounding box and path. Normally they should touch. Look at my screenshot for comparison.



I didn't realize you were looking at 25,600% zoom....but it shouldn't matter.

The reason I wanted to know what the status bar says, was to learn if the object contains any filters, or blur, or some other reason which might cause that offset. As it turns out now, it appears that there are no other factors to consider. But I surely do not understand this offset. We may have stumbled onto a bug!

Also, since the status bar says "Rectangle" it indicates that your lines aren't paths. But after you use Object to Path, they are paths. The status bar now should say "Path (x nodes) in layer whatever".

Now that I understand everything, I realize that you do NOT have the paths overlapping. You may have snapped the bounding boxes together, but since there is an offset between bbox and path, the paths themselves are not snapped together. Set snapping for cusp nodes, and they will snap properly. Here's what it will look like when they are properly snapped together.



Here's how to shorten the process of deleting the segment. The tutorials says to select each node (one at a time), use Break path at selected nodes, and then to delete the segment. Instead, you can do this:

-- select the rectangle (which has been converted to path) with the Node tool
-- click once on the segment that you want to remove - the 2 nodes will become highlighted
-- click "Delete segment between 2 non-endpoint nodes" button on Node tool control bar
-- done!

After I post this, I'll search Launchpad for bugs. Surely this has already been found....although apparently not fixed.

I hope your project will go smoothly after this. But if you have other Inkscape-related trouble, let us know

Indeed is a new bug, although related to an existing and previously reported one! https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1094802

Thanks for the help guys!

It makes live very hard because first I was working with rectangle and tapped in the size I needed in the H and W fields. Since there is an offset (even small, I don't want it) I drew the lines with path (the offset is still there) and I tapped in the coördinates for all the points (three actually, LOL). Then I duplicated the shaped (there are also some circels in it with the same issue, but I leave it as it is) and then with NODES SNAP on I could perfectly match all the L's to form perfect rectangles, no more space in between.

To be honest I had the same problem already a year ago but since the material was quite thick (5mm and 3mm) the laser burns more that an infinite thin line (actually 0,3mm if I'm not mistaken), so these gaps were not a big issue. But now the material is only 0,5mm and possibly it could bring in problems.

Thanks for the help, happy to see the bug is reported and I hope Inkscape will be updated with a solution in the near future.