could you like to help me to change a stencil?

vojo · July 16, 2015, 10:43:32 PM

Ok guys...I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed...but why would you NOT do this:
1. Circle/Square/etc (BTW, you could get slick have three and see number 4
2. 2 separate connectors attached where you want them (if number 4 then, make sure connector points on shape line up)
3. Group all
4. Use group level custom props to config shape
- say pick circle...and set geometry nofill and noline to true for square and such (I have done this alot in 2003 so its fine)
- say pick connector thickness or color....set in connector or group fill
- etc
5. Go to group format and set children first
6. Can hide group handles if you want in the group shape sheet.

What am I missing? Tune me up, guys.

xiamen168 · July 17, 2015, 02:17:22 AM

can add a square shape in WithBelly2.vsd for me?

THANKS!!!

wapperdude · July 17, 2015, 03:17:24 AM

Yes, sometime tomorrow.

xiamen168 · July 17, 2015, 04:34:05 AM

Best regards

wapperdude · July 17, 2015, 01:49:46 PM

Here's version with square. I've also added a control point to move the shape vertically.

Wapperdude

wapperdude · July 17, 2015, 05:17:05 PM

@Vojo:

Vojo, you make valid point of using the traditional group structure. So, why this alternative path?

1.) Initially, it was just an embellishment to an existing shape, which John Goldfield did very well. But, then, it morphed, and rather than just a "straight" in/out, there was now a right angled scenario. I think my frame of mind was just to adapt the existing work.

2.) Both approaches use grouping. There is some difference in effort, but, by-and-large, the bulk of the effort (shapesheet coding for group criteria) is the same. The shapesheet formulas to switch between circle, triangle, etc. is still the same.

3.) The upside of the approach I adopted:
a. Only two shape levels...the group and a single subgroup shape. That makes the overall implementation a little more efficient I think, but not significantly.
b. It is a "single" entity from a connectivity standpoint. That is, it looks like a single connector.
c. There is no need to do multiple selections: members vs group.
4.) The downside of the approach:
a. The need to "code" multiple geometry sections in the subgroup shape. That takes more thought and more time. Less intuitive. Not an approach a casual user might take?
b. "Orientation" issues, e.g., the case when perfectly vertical orientation is desired. That does require a lot more effort, but, was not a stated objective.

5.) The upside of the traditional, grouped shaping that you identify:
a. more intuitive in its physical implementation, i.e., each shape is a separate subshape
b. easier to drag and move the subshape, both horizontally and vertically. Although, that wasn't a requirement if I remember correctly.
c. easier to change shape orientation
6.) The downside of this approach:
a. From a connectivity perspective, it is two connectors with an intervening shape. Not a single connector end to end.
b. More shape "clicking"
I. each connector must be individually selected to move its free end
II. another click necessary to select the group shape to access the group functions: e.g., type of shape (circle, square), size of shape

7. Both allow user to apply all of the GUI formatting features on the menu bar (ribbon).

Both approaches work. Both approaches have merits and both have weaknesses.

HTH
Wapperdude

xiamen168 · July 20, 2015, 12:52:51 AM

It is very useful!
thank you very much!!!

xiamen168 · July 20, 2015, 08:46:48 AM

@wapperdude

could you like to help me to change
the shape(circle,triangle,diamond,square) size in hi.vsd file,
Reduced to 1/4 the size

best regards!

xiamen168 · July 20, 2015, 09:04:40 AM

i found a good method ,
double click shape can to change shape size!
thanks!!!

xiamen168 · July 20, 2015, 09:35:54 AM

hi @wapperdude

a new question,
can be made multi angle?

regards!

vojo · July 20, 2015, 12:30:42 PM

FWIW....take these apart and see how down (very tedious)....June the 2nd has alot of good examples these are based off of

wapperdude · July 20, 2015, 08:28:39 PM

This is beginning to evolve into a much more complex shape. Yes, I guess it could be done with the existing approach, but, not sure that's really the best way to go as it requires increasing user interaction.

xiamen168 · July 21, 2015, 01:02:17 AM

@wapperdude @vojo ,
sorry I still do not understand, can you help me to modify it (hi.vsd)
regards!

xiamen168 · July 21, 2015, 09:54:20 AM

or like this style
who can help me?
regards!

wapperdude · July 21, 2015, 09:11:11 PM

Updated the shape. Add control point to move a 2nd corner. Only one corner. May be before or after shape. The control automatically switches as you move it. If the control is
"centered" on the shape, it will not add a corner. See attached file.

Did not do much testing, so there may be some quirks.

Wapperdude