Re: Concatenating transforms to scale positions but not objects
Nir is right here but if you could ask your question on StackOverflow I'd be willing to comment on it because I was facing a very similar problem in my projects and I might provide some ideas. Am 11.08.19 um 01:25 schrieb Nir Lisker: I think that this is a better question for StackOverflow. This is a development mailing list. - Nir On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:53 PM Mark Raynsford wrote: On 2019-08-06T19:11:42 +0100 Mark Raynsford wrote: Hello! I realize the subject is somewhat convoluted. I'm putting together something that bears a passing resemblance to a DAW such as Ardour: Given the tumbleweeds and sounds of crickets, I'm guessing that I expressed my question rather poorly. Here's what I'm trying to do: I'm trying to set up a pane with a transform such that I can place objects inside that pane using positions that don't correspond to JavaFX "scene pixels". For example, 1024 units in my coordinate system might correspond to 1 "scene pixel" (is there a better name for the units that JavaFX uses?). However: The objects that are *inside* the objects that I add to the pane want to work in "scene pixels" (for example; Labels seem to want to work in pixel positions when rendering text). Here's a GitHub gist that gives a short example of this: https://gist.github.com/io7m/20b071e11da2dcd96896a43fad6df644 I create one container group (actually a Pane) that adds a transform such that 1 unit == 32 pixels. I add objects to this container. Each object I add has an *external* pane with a size and position specified in units, and an *internal* pane that solely exists to invert the scale of the transform of the *external* pane. Inside this *internal* pane, I can add Labels and so on and these all render correctly. I set up bindings between the transforms so that I can effectively scale and pan the scene by adjusting the transform on the group container. However: Something about this setup seems to be confusing something inside JavaFX; the results I'm seeing onscreen don't seem to match what JavaFX believes the bounds of various objects are. This causes visual issues when I try to do things like set borders on objects, and also seems to confuse ScenicView. Here's a shot with the container group selected (looks correct): https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view0.png Here's a shot with the *external* pane of the bottom object selected: https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view1.png Note that, although the object actually renders onscreen as the right size (one of the pale grey boxes), ScenicView seems to believe that the object's bounds are 1x1: They *are* 1x1, but they're 1x1 when expressed in my custom coordinate system, not in JavaFX "scene pixels". Here's a shot with the *internal* pane of the bottom object selected: https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view2.png This looks correct in the sense that the bounds encompass the label and nothing else. Am I doing something wrong here? I can't tell if I'm basically abusing transforms or not. -- Mark Raynsford | http://www.io7m.com
Re: Concatenating transforms to scale positions but not objects
I think that this is a better question for StackOverflow. This is a development mailing list. - Nir On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:53 PM Mark Raynsford wrote: > On 2019-08-06T19:11:42 +0100 > Mark Raynsford wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > I realize the subject is somewhat convoluted. I'm putting together > > something that bears a passing resemblance to a DAW such as Ardour: > > Given the tumbleweeds and sounds of crickets, I'm guessing that I > expressed my question rather poorly. > > Here's what I'm trying to do: I'm trying to set up a pane with a > transform such that I can place objects inside that pane using > positions that don't correspond to JavaFX "scene pixels". For example, > 1024 units in my coordinate system might correspond to 1 "scene pixel" > (is there a better name for the units that JavaFX uses?). However: The > objects that are *inside* the objects that I add to the pane want to > work in "scene pixels" (for example; Labels seem to want to work in > pixel positions when rendering text). > > Here's a GitHub gist that gives a short example of this: > > https://gist.github.com/io7m/20b071e11da2dcd96896a43fad6df644 > > I create one container group (actually a Pane) that adds a transform > such that 1 unit == 32 pixels. I add objects to this container. Each > object I add has an *external* pane with a size and position specified > in units, and an *internal* pane that solely exists to invert the scale > of the transform of the *external* pane. Inside this *internal* pane, I > can add Labels and so on and these all render correctly. > > I set up bindings between the transforms so that I can effectively > scale and pan the scene by adjusting the transform on the group > container. However: Something about this setup seems to be confusing > something inside JavaFX; the results I'm seeing onscreen don't seem to > match what JavaFX believes the bounds of various objects are. This > causes visual issues when I try to do things like set borders on > objects, and also seems to confuse ScenicView. > > Here's a shot with the container group selected (looks correct): > > https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view0.png > > Here's a shot with the *external* pane of the bottom object selected: > > https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view1.png > > Note that, although the object actually renders onscreen as the right > size (one of the pale grey boxes), ScenicView seems to believe that the > object's bounds are 1x1: They *are* 1x1, but they're 1x1 when expressed > in my custom coordinate system, not in JavaFX "scene pixels". > > Here's a shot with the *internal* pane of the bottom object selected: > > https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view2.png > > This looks correct in the sense that the bounds encompass the label and > nothing else. > > Am I doing something wrong here? I can't tell if I'm basically abusing > transforms or not. > > -- > Mark Raynsford | http://www.io7m.com > >
Re: Concatenating transforms to scale positions but not objects
On 2019-08-06T19:11:42 +0100 Mark Raynsford wrote: > Hello! > > I realize the subject is somewhat convoluted. I'm putting together > something that bears a passing resemblance to a DAW such as Ardour: Given the tumbleweeds and sounds of crickets, I'm guessing that I expressed my question rather poorly. Here's what I'm trying to do: I'm trying to set up a pane with a transform such that I can place objects inside that pane using positions that don't correspond to JavaFX "scene pixels". For example, 1024 units in my coordinate system might correspond to 1 "scene pixel" (is there a better name for the units that JavaFX uses?). However: The objects that are *inside* the objects that I add to the pane want to work in "scene pixels" (for example; Labels seem to want to work in pixel positions when rendering text). Here's a GitHub gist that gives a short example of this: https://gist.github.com/io7m/20b071e11da2dcd96896a43fad6df644 I create one container group (actually a Pane) that adds a transform such that 1 unit == 32 pixels. I add objects to this container. Each object I add has an *external* pane with a size and position specified in units, and an *internal* pane that solely exists to invert the scale of the transform of the *external* pane. Inside this *internal* pane, I can add Labels and so on and these all render correctly. I set up bindings between the transforms so that I can effectively scale and pan the scene by adjusting the transform on the group container. However: Something about this setup seems to be confusing something inside JavaFX; the results I'm seeing onscreen don't seem to match what JavaFX believes the bounds of various objects are. This causes visual issues when I try to do things like set borders on objects, and also seems to confuse ScenicView. Here's a shot with the container group selected (looks correct): https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view0.png Here's a shot with the *external* pane of the bottom object selected: https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view1.png Note that, although the object actually renders onscreen as the right size (one of the pale grey boxes), ScenicView seems to believe that the object's bounds are 1x1: They *are* 1x1, but they're 1x1 when expressed in my custom coordinate system, not in JavaFX "scene pixels". Here's a shot with the *internal* pane of the bottom object selected: https://ataxia.io7m.com/2019/08/10/view2.png This looks correct in the sense that the bounds encompass the label and nothing else. Am I doing something wrong here? I can't tell if I'm basically abusing transforms or not. -- Mark Raynsford | http://www.io7m.com
