Nodes being added and changed after Path Exclusion??

[KPop4Eva]

 
I'm new to Inkscape, only been using it for about a month or so, but when I have a base shape, and then I cut another shape out of it using the Path > Exclusion function, Inkscape wants to add new nodes in various places where I don't want or need them. Sometimes only a few, sometimes a whole bunch. Why is that and how do I prevent it?

Not only does it add new nodes, it changes most of my smooth nodes into cusp nodes, which I don't want. Furthermore, it often stacks some of the new nodes on top of each other, so what looks like a single node may actually be 2, 3, or even 4 nodes, making the path extremely cluttered an unoptimized. This is driving me nuts! I have a design that should only be about 3,500 nodes, give or take a couple hundred, but after dozens of Exclusion operations out of my base shape, my node count is up to almost 6,000!

Gah! 

Thanks.

[Lazur]

Hi.

My experience is Boolean operations create alot of new nodes if there are same shaped segments above eachother.
For example draw a circle, duplicate it, rotate the copy a bit and add them together. Try avoiding such, making the path segments in the operation clearly intersecting.

Either way, it will probably help if you increase the precision settings in the preferences (Shift+Ctrl+P, svg output option-number of digits etc.)

[brynn]

Yes, these are known problems.  I'm not sure if they are considered bugs....  Actually I reported most of those, although the report has not received any attention from developers yet.  Let's see if I can find it....  https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1449815    It seems to me I first saw it happening in version 0.91.  But when I was testing, I found it happened in 0.48 too.  Maybe I just didn't notice it then, but it seems to be getting worse for me.

But yeah, those problems make me bonkers too!  It happens with more things too, besides just the booleans.  Paint Bucket, Trace Bitmap, LPEs (spiro spline is the worst, for me) anything where you need Object to Path, etc.

In some cases, Path menu > Simplify can reduce the extra nodes.  But you can't just simplify the whole drawing at once.  It works better to do it one path at a time.  Or you can do it a few at a time, if the paths have a similar number of nodes.

Proactively....it seems like I remember someone suggesting to use Edit menu > Inkscape Preferences > Input/Output > SVG Output > Path Data,  set to Absolute.  But don't quote me on that.  I have NOT tried it.  (I'm set to Optimized).  (This problem was happening before that option was created.)

Lazur's suggestion is definitely worth a try though.

[Lazur]

Path Data,  set to Absolute.  But don't quote me on that.  I have NOT tried it.  (I'm set to Optimized).  (This problem was happening before that option was created.)

Still quoting, haha.
Just a note the optimized is the other setting on transformation next to preserved at the top of the settings and not at the svg output. Optimized is the default and it is related most visibly on the stroke attribute -wether they get distorted after scaling an object sideways only.
The other, absolute and relative option is how the coordinates of the paths are stored. Absolute is defined by the document's global coordinate system and relative is defined from the start node of the path.
As far as I know the latter can save some space in the document but guessing it has hardly anything to do with path operations.

[brynn]

Just a note the optimized is the other setting on transformation next to preserved at the top of the settings and not at the svg output.

I'm not sure what you're saying -- the top of what settings?  Here's a screenshot of Preferences > Input/Output > SVG Output, showing the Optimized, Preserved and Absolute options under Path Data settings.

I'm sure I've seen that suggested for part of this problem.  I could be confused between Absolute and Preserved.  But not about SVG Output preferences.  But I don't know how much it helps, if at all.  I don't remember if the user reported whether it was helping or not.  But I remember their name, so I could search out the message, if it matters.

[Moini]

Lazur means this part of the preferences dialog:

[KPop4Eva]

Thanks very much for your input on this, everyone! If it's a bug, or maybe something that just needs to be developed further, I hope the devs come 'round to addressing it sooner rather than later, but I will give your suggestions a try!

[Lazur]

Well the problem of applying boolean operations to identical objects is computational and pretty much exists even in cad softwares.
Remembering how many error messages I got of inconsistency in autocad too well from a long time ago.
You need to use intersecting shapes in your drawing process.

[brynn]

Lazur means this part of the preferences dialog:

Oh, I see.  Now Lazur's message makes a lot more sense!  I wonder if a language translation might have made it more confusing (for both of us).  I not sure if whether a transform attribute is created would have any effect on this problem.

As far as I know the latter can save some space in the document but guessing it has hardly anything to do with path operations.

I'm not sure if the message I'm remember was about a boolean (path operation).  I can't remember what was triggering it in that message, but the problem was that an extra node was being created, and it seems like a "double node" was mentioned too.

But I think he is right about a certain amount of inconsistency is to be expected.  Certainly nodes will be moved, they have to be moved to create the new shape.  And maybe even new nodes have to be created.  But I'm not sure if changing of the node type should be expected, and to me, the "double nodes" should be a bug.

I should also say that I'm not an expert about bugs - just a lowly user.