Is there any way to get Xara (Designer Pro X18) to be more accurate?

[pauland]

The question asked was:

"Is there any way to get Xara (Designer Pro X18) to be more accurate?"

I think the answer has been established.

Acorn

An answer was established, but the question was never going to give a good answer. Bit like when I sometimes use a heavy wrench as a hammer, I can do it but it's not the best solution for the job.

[shiphen]

At 8mp you can determine a box's colour; this is a 282 micron square - twice the diameter of a SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Since you raise it...

Sorry but 282 microns is NOT all that small. It's just under 1/3 of a mm.
It's equivalent to 2.5 sheets of 90gsm paper, and is easily visible with the human eye - albeit with reading glasses on in my case.


Re the Covid virus, "The SARS-CoV-2 can vary in length from 9 to 12 nm."
[Source: https://www.news-medical.net/health/...r-Things.aspx]
So 282 microns divided by 10nm (or 0.01 microns)

==> you are out by a factor of x28,200 !

;^P


Either way, personally I do find it irritating that even if we abandon conventional units like Millimetres that and if we use Xara's native units (Millipoints) that it still can't store shapes accurately. Personally, albeit at the risk of being seen in these parts to have murdered a Holy Cow, I would definitely call that "a bug".

Meanwhile for my existing diagrams, there is probably no trivially easy way to convert them in to Millipoints, complete a grid to which they more or less accurately sitting on, so I shall just have to leave my XAR files in somewhat inaccurate Millimetres units, and keep dragging them back to snap onto the grid, rather than use the nudge tool (e.g. Right arrow).

Probably serves me right for trying to use a "vector illustration tool" as a CAD package, but like I say - fool that I am - I do (broadly) know my way around XDP and like being able to do subtle visual things in it that are impossible in most CAD packages....

J

[pauland]

[QUOTE=shiphen;639138]Probably serves me right for trying to use a "vector illustration tool" as a CAD package[\quote]

Absolutely.

.. and like being able to do subtle visual things in it that are impossible in most CAD packages....

Do you have an example?

The smart shapes thing may or may not be a bug (I suspect it's a rounding issue), but I would cut the developers some slack - the core of Xara's design is to create graphics for paper or the web not to provide an ultra-precise toolset.

[handrawn]

....But mostly I am just being lazy

sure are

Personally, albeit at the risk of being seen in these parts to have murdered a Holy Cow, I would definitely call that "a bug"

its not a bug, it's the way the program works intentionally, as I explained; I went through all this at the end of the decade before last... but took me a while to remember

and it is indeed lazy to label something a bug just because it does not do what you think it should when the program designers did not design it that way, in fact worse it is self-indulgent

a bug is a mistake; the fact that the quick shapes are not that accurate is because they are quick [aka approximate aka accurate only within a tolerance] and not being prepared to make your own shapes is well.... lazy

I use 5 programs to create what I do, no problem

sacred cows are nowhere to be seen as as far as the xara program goes - I am not defending it, I am explaining how it works - I use it less and less these days

in fact the only sacred cow I see is more of a holy grail: doing everything in just one program - now that always was bull to me

anyway, hope it all works out for you

[Acorn]

Since you raise it...

Sorry but 282 microns is NOT all that small. It's just under 1/3 of a mm.
It's equivalent to 2.5 sheets of 90gsm paper, and is easily visible with the human eye - albeit with reading glasses on in my case.


Re the Covid virus, "The SARS-CoV-2 can vary in length from 9 to 12 nm."
[Source: https://www.news-medical.net/health/...r-Things.aspx]
So 282 microns divided by 10nm (or 0.01 microns)

==> you are out by a factor of x28,200 !

;^P


Either way, personally I do find it irritating that even if we abandon conventional units like Millimetres that and if we use Xara's native units (Millipoints) that it still can't store shapes accurately. Personally, albeit at the risk of being seen in these parts to have murdered a Holy Cow, I would definitely call that "a bug".

Meanwhile for my existing diagrams, there is probably no trivially easy way to convert them in to Millipoints, complete a grid to which they more or less accurately sitting on, so I shall just have to leave my XAR files in somewhat inaccurate Millimetres units, and keep dragging them back to snap onto the grid, rather than use the nudge tool (e.g. Right arrow).

Probably serves me right for trying to use a "vector illustration tool" as a CAD package, but like I say - fool that I am - I do (broadly) know my way around XDP and like being able to do subtle visual things in it that are impossible in most CAD packages....

J

Agreed 1 micron is 0.001mm! I should have use nanometres.

I did said '282 micron square - twice the diameter of a SARS-CoV-2 virus' which is 17 micron by 17 micron. So the diameter of a Sars-COV-2 virus - 8.5 micron, which is way too big.

I am afraid that you misquoted your reference's content by a factor of 10:

In addition to mechanistic information, researchers have also evaluated the size and content characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 particles. Upon analysis of negative-stained SARS-CoV-2 articles by electron microscopy, different researchers have had varying results, but the diameter of the virus has been found to range between 50 nm to 140 nm.In addition to measuring the spherical size of the virus particle, it has also been confirmed that the length of the size tumors surrounding the outermost surface of SARS-CoV-2 can vary in length from 9 to 12 nm.

90gsm paper thickness can be around 0.1mm or 100 micron.
My incorrect virus diameter was given as 8.5 micron so we could have about 12 stacked viruses to a sheet's thickness.
If the virus is 140nm dia then I was 60 times out, not 28,200.

Putting that all to one side as an incorrect example, which was just supposed to be a scene setter.
You are trying to work the application at its limits. We have established that.

Instead, present all your dimensions, not in mm but cm, and you have all the the necessary accuracy required for engineering drawing.
Create a new Unit, Milli (mil), and set that to be equal 10mm.
Set Scaling 1cm (doc) equal 1mm (real world).
mils also shows 3 d.p. if you have changed your Windows setting.

Finally, copy & paste into your A1 document and scale to 10%.
Keep all your little sketches in mils in Layers so you can Solo view each quickly.

For fullest possibly accuracy, work in millipoints

The XDA is not a CAD engine so you cannot assert that it is not handling "conventional" Millimetres.
@handrawn as identified the failings of Xara's default SmartShapes.
Noting these, for fullest possibly accuracy, work in millipoints.
Nudging is then spot-on, without invoking any Holy Cows.
Even using mils, with a Nudge (ndg) Unit of 8ndg equals 10mm, the worst error I can for moving across a single A1 Landscape is 0.114mil in 118mil or 944 single Nudges - (0.01% accuracy). As recommended earlier, don't do this at home.
I can achieve zero error with correct use of Shift+Nudge and Nudge to out to 118mil.

Without splitting hairs (17 - 181 micron), I think you have received nothing but constructive assistance here.
Proving flaxen hair (17 micron) is way too thick for a Sar-COV-2 virus.

Acorn

[shiphen]

Mmmm....

So the short answer to my question is "No, there is no way to increase the accuracy of Xara."

A slightly longer answer is "Yes there are various workarounds that appear to create greater accuracy."

Longer still would be:
"But whatever you do, if you want accuracy don't use millipoints if want to create rectangles in the normal way, rather than drawing them line point by point. But don't call it 'a bug' because that what the programmers wanted."

Regarding quick shapes failing to be able to accept whole numbers of millipoints, from a user's perspective frankly that's just an error, even if the programmers consciously designed it like that. (But if they did, what were the thinking? No, my best guess it that they didn't intend it to be impossible to enter 100 x100 mp Rectangle.)

[handrawn]

oh you make me laugh

we have at great length tried to get you to see that the way you look at xara designer is incorrect; that you expect from it what it cannot give, and was never meant to give; that the problem is not actually with the program

if you want accuracy down to enginering levels you use a CAD program
if you only want accuracy down to 'normal' office / commercial art levels you use a program like xara, which is considerably cheaper as a consequence of not needing to be so accurate

so either 'pay the money and get the CAD accuracy' or 'save money and accept a commercial art level of accuracy'
Unless your name is Mandy Rabbit you cannot have it both ways

and in fact, the ability to work accurately in xara in millipoints, is a bonus; no way is it a workaround, it is the correct way to work to the maximum level of accuracy that the program can acheive

create rectangles in the normal way

creating rectangles and other quick shapes in the normal way is to create them at commercial art levels of accuracy, which is what they were designed for
anyone wanting both speed of creation and enginering accuracy, but is not prepared to pay CAD level prices, well, good luck to them I say and please come back and tell us when you find such a program, love to hear about it

Regarding quick shapes failing to be able to accept whole numbers of millipoints, from a user's perspective frankly that's just an error, even if the programmers consciously designed it like that. (But if they did, what were the thinking? No, my best guess it that they didn't intend it to be impossible to enter 100 x100 mp Rectangle.)

there you go again, putting the blame on a commercial art program for not behaving like a CAD program; mystified why you should do this as you yourself said at the start you knew it wasn't; are you somehow in a state of denial that your attempt to force a commercial art program to behave like a CAD program isn't working?

as I've just said, the quick shapes were designed to work at commercial art level, not enginering level; they are therefore not accurate to a millipoint or two.. but frankly no one in the commercial art world is likely to give a monkey's about that because no way would they be working to such tight tolerances; and those who work at engiering level tolerences in xara would have no qualms about creating their own shapes [which is a small price to pay for not having to buy CAD]

[ernie-f]

+1 well said Handrawn!

[shiphen]

As I have said CAD does not allow me to sketch in the way I like. It is not trivially easy to quickly and easily make multiple copies of something AND allow the use of subtle colouring AND transparency AND do anti-aliasing fast and in real time. Personally I also have many drawings and vector-based sketch designs that are already in Xara format.

The fact remains that if we work on very large pages, and work in points (not millimetres) that does help. Scaling can help with this too. There are some weird, inaccuracies if you create a shape using the Rectangle tool that you are claiming are a desired features. Self-evidently they aren't desired.

Xara obviously has some sort of internal rounding errors. So what? Why be so defensive? Please stop trying to pretend Xara is perfect. It isn't.

Nor am I expecting it to be. But if a company can't handled constructive criticisms it's days will be numbered.

J


PS It would be interesting to know who Xara's existing customer base is. Re commercial art, personally I have yet to find professional graphic designer, nor any industrial product designer who actually uses is. To me it has always been an easy to use "jack of all trades" product that does a lot of things quite well.

It turns out that if one works in p/mp not /m/mm it does do 2D CAD pretty well, whatever you say.

[pauland]

As I have said CAD does not allow me to sketch in the way I like.

Nobody that requires the accuracy that you want is "sketching".

"A sketch (ultimately from Greek σχέδιος – schedios, "done extempore"^[1][2][3]) is a rapidly executed freehand drawing that is not usually intended as a finished work."

Laying aside the "freehand drawing" bit your beef with Xara is about accuracy and sketching is about speed and ideas with little regard for accuracy.


Xara obviously has some sort of internal rounding errors. So what? Why be so defensive? Please stop trying to pretend Xara is perfect. It isn't.

Nobody has asserted that Xara is perfect nor are they defensive. Exasperated perhaps that someone is criticising the software because it has imperfections when used as a CAD alternative. It is not a CAD alternative.

if a company can't handled constructive criticisms it's days will be numbered.

Nobody from Xara has commented on your CAD-like intentions and that's probably for the best.


To me it has always been an easy to use "jack of all trades" product that does a lot of things quite well.

Well that's exactly what it is and it's definitely not a CAD alternative, nor should it try to be.


APOLOGIES - quotes all messed up..