New object "chaining" method for brushes

I noticed recently that the current method for object chaining used with the brush tool has each object in the sequence effectively anchored to the line by its center point i.E. allowing for rotation ETC... enabling a lot of Xara's brush FX ETC... But this same scheme does not serve so well if the user wants the objects in the sequence to chainproperly.
(ie like railway carriages in that the ends of each object would not drift apart around corners)

This new chaining option could also have a parameter to allow (or not) for automatic variance in object size (within limits) so as the chain could better adhere to tighter corners.

Hi David,
If I were you I think you want to spend a little more time in getting the link spacing correct as here is a chain brush as a example here: http://talkgraphics.com/showthread.php?t=5957

Do a search for Xhris brushes if I can remember he produced a Word doc. on everything to do with brushes and lots of examples. You may have to go on to his site to get them now it is a few years sinse there was a link direct from this forum. Hope this has been what you were looking for Cheers.

I sure will look that document up as I still have a few unanswered questions RE: brushing ETC/.... Thanks alot for that.

I know chaining can be done well, your example and mine (the one i just submitted) chain well because they both contain links which are nearly circular.... (in his case every second one but the effect is the same)

THIS PROBLEM MANIFESTS IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE INCREASE IN THE LENGTH TO WIDTH RATIO OF THE COMPONENT LINKS. (length being along the line direction)

It would inevitably occur if the links in either case were longish rectangles rather than slightly flattened donuts.

P.S. I'm not knocking Xara's current brushing system as I'm very aware that the same system I'm taking issue with in one specific context is also otherwise responsible for some very spectacular stuff.
But still: if your dealing with elongated shapes and you want these to ride around bends with out coming apart you need 2 "axles" (one on each end of each "Car") so both ends are tied down (to the line) and together...
But if you want spectacular rotation FX then you fix your objects down by one point in the middle (that way you can rotate them) ...I.E. the current scheme....

Horses for courses....

I can see where both options would be useful. Perhaps there could be a way to choose which option you want?

yeah an additional option would suit. But like anything it would have pros and cons.
-> Pros: flawless chaining.
-> Cons:
*no fancy rotation FX possible.

*For longish shapes to transverse wiggly paths it is then necessary to have parameters to manage this:
Ie:
1) to actively manage/variably reduce object lengths ( /and or sizes, with in stated limits) as they approach and round tight bends.
2) and to reduce spacing and in somecases overlap a little in extreme conditions ETC

Baring in mind also that if the maximum amount of object length/size reduction and leverage allowed, (specified by the user) still resulted in the reduced objects being too long to go around very tight curves then the path itself would need to be flattened out.......(parts of the train would be off the tracks)....

Anyway its a good idea i think for chaining objects well in normal conditions and would add to xtreme's already capable brush tool.
So its not perfect but none the less worth while for its own purposes.

P.s in addition to this i can also envisage another ( more advanced) amendment to this type of brushing that would allow the user to specify (digitize) the exact Start and End rotation points for each object individually.... this would allow ultimate control for chaining objects...

But also would necessitate the user importing one object at a time into the brush and then requiring them to digitize start and end rotation points for each object...
So the user could also opt for a more tedious setup procedure if they wanted to execute very exacting control.