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
I dont think this makes to much sense logically in terms of it not acting as the desired length, and also the default min stitch is a bit to small for these two functions (will post pics of satin stitch soon)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes this is the expected behavior. these two functions use extremely super-sampled calculations, before downsampling them in the resample step. The "desirable" length should be viewed as the maximum stitch length in the resample step. I only called it "desirable" instead of maximum because the randomization might alter it a little bit, but otherwise it is the maximum.
So I think the correct solution is for the user to increase the minimum stitch length. If you think there's a better default value for minimum stitch length, please let me know the value thanks.
Makes sense, Ill specify this in the examples so users know why it behaves differently , & will do some different tests on things to see what values are best
these two fill functions ignore the desirable length from setStitch and instead use something a lot closer to minimum stitch length
spiral
setStitch(2,10,0) , (2,50,0), and (50,50,0);
satin
setStitch(100,100,0), (10,100,0), (10,10,0);
I dont think this makes to much sense logically in terms of it not acting as the desired length, and also the default min stitch is a bit to small for these two functions (will post pics of satin stitch soon)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: