Open tatyanade opened 4 years ago
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);![2,10](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21960277/85935505-ba2d0b80-b8bf-11ea-9fb6-8ea6b89ae073.png)
![2,50,0](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21960277/85935506-ba2d0b80-b8bf-11ea-91c5-5513eaa7b6ad.png)
![50,50](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21960277/85935507-bac5a200-b8bf-11ea-808d-e93124677f6c.png)
satin setStitch(100,100,0), (10,100,0), (10,10,0);![2020-06-27_21h47_49](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21960277/85935521-efd1f480-b8bf-11ea-9d90-c0e6fc23abea.png)
![2020-06-27_21h48_26](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21960277/85935533-fd877a00-b8bf-11ea-8c09-325a82de2396.png)
![2020-06-27_21h48_54](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21960277/85935544-1728c180-b8c0-11ea-83e8-2c721dcc4222.png)
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)