Closed thomassidor closed 2 years ago
Could you provide a small code example for me to play around with?
Hi Michael
Thanks for the quick reply!
Preparing an example for you I actually narrowed it down to something else than I thought!
I was using you hatching example (https://github.com/micycle1/PGS/blob/master/examples/dysonHatching/dysonHatching.pde) to hatch some random polygons and that weren't working.
The example you made runs fine - but I noticed that it uses FX2D
and not P2D
that I use in my sketch.
Changing to P2D
in your example gets me the same result as in my sketch - the hatching not showing up (and the sketch crashing when enabeling cell outlines).
Going over to 'FX2D' in my sketch fixes it! Great :)
Thanks a lot for the help (aka. forcing me to actually eliminate variables and not stare myself blind on what I assumed)!
Note to anyone reading this using ControlP5: ControlP5 crashes when using FX2D
unless you use the fix mentioned here: https://github.com/sojamo/controlp5/issues/36
Good to hear using FX2D
fixes it.
I did look into the problems with shapes and P2D before -- I can't remember the exact details now -- but it is indeed due to circumventing createShape()
.
EDIT (from #39):
In 1.2.0, output PShapes are now always created with a shape family of PATH (rather than GEOMETRY) to maximise compatibility with the P2D renderer.
Hi
Lovely library! Seems to work great when using it the default Processing way in draw().
However in my setup I maintan a stage where I can manage all the PShapes in the scene and draw them with their shape.draw(PGraphics) method (I'm passing the PApplet.g PGraphics to it).
This works great when I create shapes with createShape(), but when using methods from PGS I can't get the shapes to show at all.
I suspect - although it's really just a guess - it's since PGS creates new shapes with new PShape() and not createShape() - the latter sets the internal protected PGraphics g in the PShape - the constructor of PShape does not.
Or perhaps I'm way off.
Any thoughts on how I could investigate this further - or perhaps even a way to overcome it?
All the best, Thomas