You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It maybe be as you pretended to be but as it is at the contrary in Inkscape I just commenting it:
If you have 2 shapes and want to do a "difference boolean", that is, Path / Difference, the normal behavior in Inkscape (and other vector graphics softwares) is that the shape on top cuts the one below, but in Friction is at the contrary.
If I start with this arrangement (obviously the red rectangle is on top of the green circle):
The result is the following (blue shape):
I see that Friction behavior is to keep the original shapes, which is acceptable and probably a good thing in some workflows, but what feels odd in the fact that the one below is the one that is cutting the one on top...
Is that known and is the way you want it to be?
Cheers
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
All options under Path will create a new path item, the original items are not touched.
A compromise could be a checkbox under the Path menu, "Keep original object(s)" with default on?
I don't think leaving the original items is a bad idea "per se", it could be useful in some scenarios, but it would be even better to have that checkbox under the Path menu so that user can choose their preferred o behavior indeed.
It maybe be as you pretended to be but as it is at the contrary in Inkscape I just commenting it:
If you have 2 shapes and want to do a "difference boolean", that is, Path / Difference, the normal behavior in Inkscape (and other vector graphics softwares) is that the shape on top cuts the one below, but in Friction is at the contrary.
If I start with this arrangement (obviously the red rectangle is on top of the green circle):
The result is the following (blue shape):
I see that Friction behavior is to keep the original shapes, which is acceptable and probably a good thing in some workflows, but what feels odd in the fact that the one below is the one that is cutting the one on top...
Is that known and is the way you want it to be?
Cheers
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: