On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:38:57 +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On screen text looks not so good, sometimes it touches the graphics.
^
This why I am in favor for the same size on screen and in output. No need
to tweak the text aft
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 17:38 +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 15:41 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Screen and print _must_ match, and that means fixing this at 1.3.
> > I don't want to add an option to adjust the combined scaling, since this
> > just gives too many
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 15:41 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
>
>
> Screen and print _must_ match, and that means fixing this at 1.3.
> I don't want to add an option to adjust the combined scaling, since this
> just gives too many degrees of freedom.
>
I have always used the default scaling for gEDA
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 15:31 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 08:25 -0600, John Doty wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:15 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
> >
> > > New text elements created by gEDA 1.6.0 will be sized directly in
> > > points, assuming gschem world coordinate units are 1/
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 08:25 -0600, John Doty wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:15 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
>
> > New text elements created by gEDA 1.6.0 will be sized directly in
> > points, assuming gschem world coordinate units are 1/1000th of an
> > inch,
> > and 1pt is 1/72 of an inch.
>
> Do g
> Do gEDA users commonly use schematic scales where a world coordinate
> unit is 1/1000 of an inch? I don't: usually I use a B or C frame and
> print on letter or A4, which make the coordinate units smaller.
I don't even use the "paper" sizes - I have four title blocks, all the
same shape as
On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:15 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
> New text elements created by gEDA 1.6.0 will be sized directly in
> points, assuming gschem world coordinate units are 1/1000th of an
> inch,
> and 1pt is 1/72 of an inch.
Do gEDA users commonly use schematic scales where a world coordinate
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 12:00 +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:58:01 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
>
> > A. Match postscript point size - so a 10pt font prints / views as a 10pt
> > font. (When printed on a title-block which matches the size of the paper
> > - printed with no mar
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 13:45 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 12:00 +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> > On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:58:01 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> >
> > > A. Match postscript point size - so a 10pt font prints / views as a 10pt
> > > font. (When printed on a title-b
On Jun 8, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:32:34 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
>
>> The only grief comes with the currently magic behaviour at 180
>> degrees,
>> which basically resets to 0 degrees rotation, and flips the anchor
>> point
>> to the opposite corn
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 12:00 +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:58:01 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
>
> > A. Match postscript point size - so a 10pt font prints / views as a 10pt
> > font. (When printed on a title-block which matches the size of the paper
> > - printed with no mar
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:58:01 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> A. Match postscript point size - so a 10pt font prints / views as a 10pt
> font. (When printed on a title-block which matches the size of the paper
> - printed with no margin).
>
> This takes the definition of 1pt as 1/72 of an inch, and
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 11:58 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> Well. I can make them the same; but we have two options:
^---
The numerate amongst you will notice that I then went on to quote 3
options, and gave them letters - rather than numbers, to keep t
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 02:30 +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:32:34 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
>
> > The only grief comes with the currently magic behaviour at 180 degrees,
> > which basically resets to 0 degrees rotation, and flips the anchor point
> > to the opposite corne
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
> Any objections to removing the 0,90,180,270 limits to rotated text?
>
> http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/screenshots/gschem_rotated_text.png
>
> Need to teach the print output to handle it of course, but that
> shouldn't be too hard.
>
> T
Flipping the anchor at 180 degrees rotation is IMHO unwanted and
unexpected magic. I think I remember being annoyed by this in the
past. What happens when you do this in a batch mode? Can it be
reversed?
It would be better if the on-screen font size matched the printed
size.
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:32:34 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> The only grief comes with the currently magic behaviour at 180 degrees,
> which basically resets to 0 degrees rotation, and flips the anchor point
> to the opposite corner of the text box.
To me, this very magic is a grief. It tires to se
Any objections to removing the 0,90,180,270 limits to rotated text?
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/screenshots/gschem_rotated_text.png
Need to teach the print output to handle it of course, but that
shouldn't be too hard.
The only grief comes with the currently magic behaviour at 180 degr
18 matches
Mail list logo
