Would you mind explaining it it? I just don't understand what you have done. (3.97 KiB) Downloaded 283 timesĬompose wrote:This is a very clever group of objects you have pieced together. (6.15 KiB) Downloaded 311 times rectangle with two gradients.svg Top rectangle is set at 50% transparency. I "works" but leaves an odd sort of central circular ball. Rectangle with two gradients 2.svg Top rectangle is set at 50% transparency. Lay the non-stroked rectangle on top and the effect is complete. So how would I add a nice thick outer stroke without it taking any room inside the rectangle? By creating two such rectangles and giving the bottom one the stroke. This becomes obvious if you exaggerate the line's thickness.
Simply put: the thicker the line, the more it consumes real estate inside the rectangle. If you study how Inkscape adds a stroke you'll see immediately that this tool won't satisfy everyone. The notion of using several layers to achieve an effect in vector art isn't new. And if the logo sits on top of the central area, the odd "ball" effect won't be visible. The black underneath can have its own unique pattern. More adjustments could be made if the bottom rectangle were black and the two top rectangles only contained the purple flares. However, if you're using a shape that doesn't permit such a flip, the next solution is to move the gradient line itself in the duplicated rectangle into opposite corners. Click the Gradient tool on the top-most rectangle and give it a 50% transparency via the Fill and Stroke dialogue.Įssentially I created a square (for ease of demonstration) and flipped the object to the left 90 degrees. Duplicate said rectangle (select item, Ctrl+D).Ģ. What you *could* try is the following (essentially what druban suggested):ġ. If you are thinking of having a third "handle" that would be entirely independent of the other two, of course this would be quite different, not an ellipse, certainly not a quadratic (2nd degree), and something to give the SVG developers a bit of a nightmare.
You could describe the ellipse by establishing another angle (other than 90) for the second arm, but it would still be an ellipse, just with a needlessly more complicated calculation. The reason for having two arms is to describe the shape of the ellipse, in other words, the length of the short arm specifies the minor axis, the other arm the major axis. in effect, you only have one set of nodes that describe colour, although they are, for convenience, duplicated on each arm. the same gradient nodes are on each axis of the radial gradients.
Brynn wrote:What would happen if we could take a radial gradient, and move one of the handles to some angle besides 90 degrees to the other? That would be Awesome!Īlthough it sounds like it might be something other than what we have now, in fact it would be no different.
0 kommentar(er)
