..some new embroidery - pieces. unfortunately i couldn't finish the embroidery-templates with inkscape, because the plugins from "sergstetsuk / inkscape embroidery project" are not working correctly with my inkscape version and i am not too familiar with the art of programming to find a solution myself. so i still have to use commercial tools to export the templates to embroidery formats, but who cares.

while editing the templates i had a few issues with inkscape. i am often dealing with large counts of node - points before exporting the vectors to the embroidery tools. even on a i7 6700hq, there was a pretty bad performance while selecting and editing node counts above 10.000 node-points. selecting node-points took seconds to half a minute, editing them in realtime (resizing etc.) was almost impossible on win and linux. do you experience these performance drops too?

editing the nodes i was encountering some hurdles i haven't found a neat solution regarding the workflow, maybe you have an idea. for example, adding extra node-points to a path with the path-modifier. is there a way to remove doubles that have been added on top of existing node-points? is there a way to add node-points and place them evenly along the path one beside one avoiding node-points placed on top of each other?







cheerio

> plugins from "sergstetsuk / inkscape embroidery project" are not working correctly with my inkscape version

- What's wrong with them? (and which Inkscape version are you using? - I'm asking because maybe it's a quick-n-easy thing to fix)

> Performance drops
- Yes, I think that's pretty normal... Maybe you could split the object into parts, then edit only one part, then later connect them?
One thing that can add to the slow-down is when you have ever had the document properties opened in the current Inkscape session, under certain circumstances. Is it better if you avoid that dialog? (or close and reopen Inkscape after having used it)

- Nodes that are on top of each other can be merged into a single one, there's a button in the node tool's tool controls bar for it (but I guess you know that, and are looking for a more automated solution?). Which functionality do you use to insert the nodes?

Moini wrote:> plugins from "sergstetsuk / inkscape embroidery project" are not working correctly with my inkscape version

- What's wrong with them? (and which Inkscape version are you using? - I'm asking because maybe it's a quick-n-easy thing to fix)

i'm still with inkscape 0.91. tested the plugins with 0.91 on ubuntu 12.04 LTS and 14.04 LTS. shapely has been installed correctly on both systems, on 14.04 the package 1.3.0-1 for python2 and python3. while exporting a simple ungrouped square (naturally converted the square to a path first) the plugin returns

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "embroider.py", line 42, in <module>
import PyEmb
File "/home/user/.config/inkscape/extensions/PyEmb.py", line 11, in <module>
from backports.functools_lru_cache import lru_cache
ImportError: No module named backports.functools_lru_cache

on ubuntu 14.04 LTS and on 12.04 LTS

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "embroider.py", line 38, in <module>
import shapely.affinity as affinity
ImportError: No module named affinity

Moini wrote:> Performance drops
- Yes, I think that's pretty normal... Maybe you could split the object into parts, then edit only one part, then later connect them?
One thing that can add to the slow-down is when you have ever had the document properties opened in the current Inkscape session, under certain circumstances. Is it better if you avoid that dialog? (or close and reopen Inkscape after having used it)

ok, thanks for the tip, i'm opening document properties in most cases when i start to work. and yes, seems like splitting objects in smaller parts will be the only way to get around this.

Moini wrote:- Nodes that are on top of each other can be merged into a single one, there's a button in the node tool's tool controls bar for it (but I guess you know that, and are looking for a more automated solution?). Which functionality do you use to insert the nodes?

yeah, i am looking for a automated solution because merging the nodes one by one is very time consuming. i've been using the "extensions->modify path->add nodes" function. the nodes added are evenly spaced but also placed on top of existing nodes at some points of the path having several nodes on top of each other.

As for the missing python module, here are a couple of threads where they mention which modules need to be installed / updated (inside a virtualenv, but you can also pip install them directly onto your system:
https://github.com/jaraco/irc/issues/71
https://github.com/jaraco/irc/issues/66

For the shapely thing, it might not be configured correctly, or Inkscape just can't find it...
I never installed / used it, but you can try this (on the command line):


Is there any error output? Or just 'nothing'?

Here: http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/ ... untu-12-10
they install it via package manager, like you did. And if the version doesn't work, they copy-paste it into a directory, then use it by giving the python script the path to the directory where they put it.

Oh, I just saw your other post:
This vital piece was missing 'is working correctly with the release of the extension by johnh'

Can you post a link to both versions? Then we can look for the difference.

hey moini,

thanks for your help! according to your hint i could add the missing python module and the plugin is working now. seems to be a good start...

Yay

(Can you add the solution to the other thread, too - in case people search for it?)

yes, i'll do so...

Sounds like it's not working perfectly yet?

..i think it's working as intended but there is still a long way to go. the workflow is pretty tricky when it is dealing with more complex objects than simple rectangles. once you have used a 2-click-solution, it's pretty hard to get used to it.

Heya... That flying dragon looks pretty cool.

About your problems/questions... I wonder where the 10,000 come into play. Granted, I don't really know about embroidery. Does this really require that many nodes?!? I'm just asking because in my own drawings I rarely ever have more than say 50 nodes in a single shape, most times there are far less than that. What if you reduced the number of nodes, i.e. simplified the shapes? This could drastically improve performance without losing the overall shapes.

The double nodes problem.. Isn't there a threshold setting for merging nodes? You know, a maximum distance at which the merging can be performed.. I don't remember exactly and can't check right now but maybe check the settings and see if you find something. IF there is, you could try and set this to a really low value, then select all nodes in a shape and use the merge nodes thingie. Probably not a perfect solution but might do the trick.

(that merge nodes thingy, I think it's just for path ends... ha1flosse has too many nodes inside a single path - I'm not sure it'll help much).

Argh, you're right of course! I'm using this quite regularly myself and have absolutely no idea what was going on in my mind when I wrote this O_o I'll have to check again, probably just got two different things mixed up. Sorry guys!

Oh, the dragons are so cute!

ha1flosse wrote:while editing the templates i had a few issues with inkscape. i am often dealing with large counts of node - points before exporting the vectors to the embroidery tools. even on a i7 6700hq, there was a pretty bad performance while selecting and editing node counts above 10.000 node-points. selecting node-points took seconds to half a minute, editing them in realtime (resizing etc.) was almost impossible on win and linux. do you experience these performance drops too?

editing the nodes i was encountering some hurdles i haven't found a neat solution regarding the workflow, maybe you have an idea. for example, adding extra node-points to a path with the path-modifier. is there a way to remove doubles that have been added on top of existing node-points? is there a way to add node-points and place them evenly along the path one beside one avoiding node-points placed on top of each other?

Yes, I have issues starting around 2000 to 3000 nodes, depending on what else is in the file. But those drawings don't look like they would be especially heavy with nodes.

Why is it that you need to add extra nodes? If you select all the n odes in a path, or at least all the nodes in the area where you need extras nodes, you can click the "Insert New Nodes on selected segments" button, which is the first button the left of the control bar. It will add one new node which is precisely halfway between each selected nodes. If you click a 2nd time, it will do the same thing again. Except for the 2nd time, there are double the number of nodes that were there originally, so the 2nd click gives you twice as many more.

You can avoid putting extra nodes in places where you don't really need them, by changing which nodes are selected. It only adds nodes between selected nodes, rather than along the entire path. And because it puts new nodes between selected nodes, you never get overlapped nodes.

But I'm still curious why you need to add more nodes. Are you hand drawing the paths with Pen/Bezier tool? Or using Trace Bitmap?

(I think they may be moved in the process of creating a stitch pattern, or are otherwise important in the process. It also seems to be important that they have a very regular distance.)

It can't be so precise that there needs to be a node wherever the needle goes in? Can it?

Well, the process I explained for adding nodes, it does add them at regular distances. Not always the same distance. It depends on the distance between the original nodes. And it virtually eliminates double nodes.

thanks!

Dillerkind wrote:About your problems/questions... I wonder where the 10,000 come into play. Granted, I don't really know about embroidery. Does this really require that many nodes?!? I'm just asking because in my own drawings I rarely ever have more than say 50 nodes in a single shape, most times there are far less than that. What if you reduced the number of nodes, i.e. simplified the shapes? This could drastically improve performance without losing the overall shapes.

brynn wrote:Why is it that you need to add extra nodes?

i was mistakenly thinking adding extra node points and setting them to "point" rather than "bezier" would help calculating the stitches espc. at sharp corners and round edges in the embroidery-tool but it's obviously not. i remember there was a tutorial for a stitch plugin in inkscape where those extra nodes were needed to calculate the stitch - lines and i've been thinking this would be a necessary step for the calculation in general.

brynn wrote:It can't be so precise that there needs to be a node wherever the needle goes in? Can it?

Well, the process I explained for adding nodes, it does add them at regular distances. Not always the same distance. It depends on the distance between the original nodes. And it virtually eliminates double nodes.

thanks for your tips brynn! the points wherever the needle goes in is obviously calculated between the lines of a vector - shape, no matter if there are 2 or 200 node points along the line. i was falsely thinking the number of nodes along the line matters for the calculation. what matters is if node points are placed on top of each other at the same coordinates.

moini wrote:(I think they may be moved in the process of creating a stitch pattern, or are otherwise important in the process. It also seems to be important that they have a very regular distance.)

contrary to my first assumption, the regular distance between the nodes is not so important. the problems i've been encountering are caused by double nodes lying on top of each other. i've been tracing a lot of works from paper. unfortunately this causes double nodes espc. at sharp corners. i am tending to work with pen and paper because i don't like sitting too much in front of a computer, so i'll have to find a way to avoid the double nodes caused by tracing the images or to merge those lying on top of each other. maybe this could be done by a script or something..

anyway, thanks for your kind help!

Ah, so you should be able cut down the total number of nodes and this way, at least, help with performance. What I was talking about earlier, there is indeed a button to join nodes. It's right next to the split nodes one. What I forgot to check is if there's a setting for the maximum distance between nodes, below which nodes shall be joined. I'll write it down and check later... seems like I'll keep forgetting if I don't write it down :D

The best way I've found to handle double nodes, without changing the path at all, is this:

-- drag around the double nodes to select both (Node tool)
-- "Delete the segment between 2 selected nodes" button (or key shortcut)
-- "Join selected nodes" button (or key shortcut)

If you just delete one (or the other) of the nodes, often it changes the path. If you try to just Join them, I've found about half the time, they won't be joined (I haven't learned why yet).

But the process of deleting the segment between (even though there is no space there) and then joining, somehow it prevents the path from being altered. The only time it doesn't work, is if there are more than 2 nodes on the same spot. If that happens, I click "Join selected nodes" a few times, until only 2 or 3 are left. Then I do that 3 step process above.

I'm not sure, if you selected all the double nodes at once, and do that process for all of them at once, if it would work. If there are any double nodes right beside each other, it probably would not work. But if they are separated by (at least) one or 2 nodes between, it might work.

I don't know anything about writing scripts. But it seems like that should be possible.

I'm glad to hear that you're getting your workflow more and more streamlined, and working out the kinks

brynn wrote:[...] If you just delete one (or the other) of the nodes, often it changes the path. If you try to just Join them, I've found about half the time, they won't be joined (I haven't learned why yet). [...]

Joining nodes only works on end nodes of a non-closed path, not somewhere in the middle of a path. That's where I was wrong, too, when I suggested this. I thought there was a button to simply join any two adjacent nodes but in reality it only closes a path by joining its end nodes. Makes a lot of sense that this button is right next to the one that breaks path at selected node, now that I think of it :D Your method works well enough - however, considering the amount of nodes he has in some of his paths, this wouldn't be very practical.

I've looked at the program settings again to see if I can't find the setting I was talking about. I'm usually only going from memory since I don't have Inkscape on this machine and I can't deny that sometimes my memory is simply wrong. Anyway, look for this: Preferences -> Behavior -> Simplification threshold, set a very small value and then simplify a path (ctrl-L I believe). With a very low value in place, this function should now only remove nodes that are very close to each other, e.g. ones that sit in exactly the same spot. You'll probably have to experiment a bit to find which value works best, but once you've got it, you can use this to get rid of all the doubled nodes with just one click, no need to manually select which nodes to remove or such.

No, I've found that sometimes adjacent nodes that are not on the ends will join. Just not every time. I know they're not supposed to, but sometimes they do. I can try to make a test file, if anyone wants to see.

Umm, this is starting to get embarrassing... Yesterday I looked again and yes, joining nodes worked on pretty much ALL nodes EXCEPT FOR end nodes (in fact I could select any number of nodes and join them). There's another button group for adding/deleting path segments, i.e. for closing gaps or making new gaps in a path. Must be something with my brain that let me mix things up so badly, in combination with unusual Inkscape behavior because I swear the day before things worked pretty much as I wrote in my last comment. Anyway, the simplification method I mentioned does work; existing nodes might change position along the path but with a small enough threshold the resulting path will still look unchanged and the double nodes will be gone.

Sorry for all the confusion I brought onto the table :/

Okay, I didn't know it worked, but it does. It's even in the manual (only the German translation hasn't been updated to match). Quoting from the manual by Tav:

"New in v0.48: If more than two end nodes are selected, pairs of end nodes will be merged, starting with the end nodes closest to each other until either zero or one end nodes are selected. If zero or one end node is selected at the start, then any adjacent stretches of selected nodes (including non-end nodes), will be merged into one node."