ShapeMaker - by the Dwarf Horde (Jan 30th, 2016)

[TechnoRobbo]

" Style" on the PDN menu bar lets you select "Dash" "Dot"  "Dash Dot" & "Dash Dot Dot" 

You can't mix so you may have to use 2 layers and erase.

[Eli]

I thought so. Thanks for the video TR.

[Pixey]

I too have been experiencing troubles like @Eli.

 

As seen whilst composing:

 

 

What actually turns out: line extending out from sleeve cuff.

 

 

Will study your comments and video now

[Eli]

Pixey you are an advanced user. I am still trying with lines  .

 

If you want just a line make sure that "Close Individual Path" is not active. Otherwise you will have embellished finials at the ends.

[TechnoRobbo]

I would make the hat, the clothes and the fingers closed shapes.

[Pixey]

Many thanks Eli and TR.  This time I remembered to keep the lines simple and also to deselect a lot more, and came up with this.  But - BOY - this sort of stuff is sure persnickety and requires a steady hand.  Also, had trouble lining up the little, itty-bitty fingers  .  But after some coloring, later in paint.net, it's not so obvious.  I've a still a lot more to learn from this Plugin and will have to practice a lot more.

 

You chaps who made this Plugin are really amazing .

 

 

 

 

 

[TechnoRobbo]

Awesome - I see a Pixey shape pack in our future

 

Also, had trouble lining up the little, itty-bitty fingers.

Even with 8X zoom?

[Ego Eram Reputo]

@Pixey: IMHO ShapeMaker is best suited to creating reusable components - the building blocks that are used to make a more complex image. If I was recreating your awesome scarecrow I'd probably make it as three separate shapes: body, head and hat.

[racerx]

I tried out the new DH ShapeMaker plugin v1.20. I like the new 8x zoom, path counts and closed shape indicator.

 

I made a bunch of engine parts shapes then assembled and animated them. Making the shapes was the easy part. Animating them was a little difficult. Much harder than it looks....

 

[TechnoRobbo]

I know I said this before but "WOW!"

[Red ochre]

Very impressive!

[Pixey]

Echo - WOW Racerx -

 

  

[racerx]

Thanks TR, Red and Pixey.

 

I've been wanting to make an animated engine for a long time, but my drawing skills leave much to be desired. DH ShapeMaker made it a lot easier. Once I saw how nice my Piston shape came out, I figured I might as well build and animate the engine now....

[MJW]

I wish the ShapeMaker plugin weren't in the Advanced submenu. I think the Advanced menu should be reserved for "meta" plugins like CodeLab and ScriptLab. It would fit better, I think, in the Tools submenu, or perhaps in a new Shape submenu (in the hope that more shape-related plugins will be added later).

[ReMake]

... or perhaps in a new Shape submenu (in the hope that more shape-related plugins will be added later).

 

In my opinion Shape submenu is a suitable name.

[Cc4FuzzyHuggles]

I like the submenu it's in, it's right at the top, making accesses to it quicker.

Aside from me being lazy, I guess I do think of it more as a "tool".

Edited October 13, 2015 by Cc4FuzzyHuggles

[Ego Eram Reputo]

"Advanced" is descriptive of both the effect's complexity and the amount of effort required to master it. Creating Shapes is not just about fiddling with the parameters and clicking OK

I put Dr Scott's Markup Renderer in the same submenu - because you need to know something about HTML/CSS/XML or MathML to use it.

[MJW]

I think Advanced should refer to the functional category of the plugins, not how difficult the pugins' authors fancy the development or use of the plugins to be. Should we also have a Simple submenu for those plugins we knock off in a few minutes?

[TechnoRobbo]

 

Should we also have a Simple submenu for those plugins we knock off in a few minutes?

 

I consider Advanced as a caveat to the user of the level of difficulty for use. Not how hard it was to program or the level of functionality. Adding a label of difficulty is quite common in DIY project tutorials and children's toys, I think there's an obvious analogue here.

[Djisves]

I think Advanced should refer to the functional category of the plugins, not how difficult the pugins' authors fancy the development or use of the plugins to be. Should we also have a Simple submenu for those plugins we knock off in a few minutes?

I agree with MJW. Sorting of plugins should be according to the task they help us accomplish, how they effect our work.

So far, plugin authors have respected a system where the sub-menu defines what a plugin is used for. I find this intuitive and the best way to sort. I'd prefer to keep it like that.  

[Red ochre]

Originally, I too, thought 'Tools' would be the best SubMenu option but now fully agree with TR, EER and BoltBait that it does belong in 'Advanced'.
That is because, like codelab, it requires a full understanding of Pdn and any plugin that requires reading the manual counts as advanced for me!

This plugin is aimed at experienced users, so hopefully the advanced category may delay new users till they are ready.
Even with the manual creating a correctly filled shape is not 'easy', but it is easier than working out coordinates on paper and writing xaml directly.

Creating a 'Shapes' submenu wouldn't be justified for just one plugin.

[ScrapbookWithPDN]

PDN 4.0.6 is the Game Changer - this is a tool to help it along

 

 

I want to thank you for a very cool plugin. I spent about 10 - 15 minutes of tinkering around with the buttons (like a person who put on a pair of ice skates for the first time) and referred to the manual one time (thus far) but I got the hang of it. Remember, I'm NOT a techie person, either. I made a rather large object with a lot of twists and turns but before it was completed I was cruising along click, click, clicking away in and out of corners, this way and that way.

 

One can easily control and edit various places of the image being made.

 

I also saved what I made to my desktop as an xaml file then placed it into my "Shapes" file, within PDN.  

 

What would the disadvantage be for  "Save as XAML" instead of "Export PathGeometry"? Just curious.

 

Anyway, to all involved in ShapeMaker, thank you.

[ScrapbookWithPDN]

Thanks, I'll analyze it.

The issue with Eli happened to me, too. After saving it then installing the file to "shapes", once I selected it to use on the canvas I then realized it added a protruding line on the image that I didn't make or have. I just used my eraser tool to get rid of it once I had the image the size I wanted it. It was the only thing I knew to do and wasn't a big deal to do but I'm just letting you know in case it helps with anything.

Edited November 12, 2015 by ScrapbookWithPDN

[TechnoRobbo]

 

 

What would the disadvantage be for  "Save as XAML" instead of "Export PathGeometry"? Just curious.

Both are really the same just different syntax. PDN reads both. Other programs maybe partial to one or the other. PathGeometry may be easier to tweak by hand.

[ScrapbookWithPDN]

You can fix it by putting a Z at the end of the shape.

 

<Page
  xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
  xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml">
   <Canvas Width="1000">
      <Path
         Width="800"
         Height="600"
         Canvas.Left="0"
         Canvas.Top="0"
         Data="M 10,10 L 250,490,490,10 Q 250,230,10,10 Z"
          StrokeThickness ="3"
         Fill ="#FF999999"
         Stroke="#FF000000"
         Stretch=" None"/>
   </Canvas>
</Page>

OK, I'm having the open edges, too....I installed Kaxaml and tried to put a Z in, but upon opening up the file of the image I made, within Kaxaml, I realized it wasn't what you are showing to add a Z to. So, I guess I can't add a Z to make the corners not split open in places, when enlarging it...not all the way open but more like corners split open. I can simply use the paint tool and fill in those "V" areas. I still love the plugin.

Edited November 12, 2015 by ScrapbookWithPDN