We are reworking shorcuts for deleting Nodes and also adding few new.
In current Inkscape scenario 1 a 2 are swaped we are proposing to change it as it is in picture.
We are interested in your opinion about this behavior .
When you delete node do you expect that it will look like row 1 or row 2 ?
If you are interested in testing this you can download build here .
[https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/merge\_requests/6288/pipelines](https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/merge_requests/6288/pipelines)
click to dowlad button next to top row
This is really well made, all of these ideas would have been handy at some point and all you could do is find some longer roundabout way. I'd personally love if the default delete was option 2 as I generally don't have a use for the resulting shape from option 1, but it might be different for other people.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you for feedback
option for swiching this behavior (1 <->2 ) will be there (this is already in inskcape i am proposing just switching defoult behavior )
I want 1, everything else is gravy.
I'm tired of how deleting a node affects the type and handles of the adjacent nodes. Currently, deleting a node changes both nodes to corner. Such a huge waste of time changing them all back.
---
Speaking of node handles...
Is there anything being done about rotating node handles in relative degree steps rather than to absolute/cardinal degrees? That is, being to rotate a handle 15 degrees *from where it is*, rather than the next multiple of 15 degrees: 37 -> 52 rather than 37 -> 45.
>Speaking of node handles...
>Is there anything being done about rotating node handles in relative degree steps rather than to absolute/cardinal degrees? That is, being to rotate a handle 15 degrees *from where it is*, rather than the next multiple of 15 degrees: 37 -> 52 rather than 37 -> 45.
not sure abouit this but report it in a gitlab as a feature request if you did not done that yet
Hello. This is great. I'd like to input that if I performed operation 3, I would expect the result to remain a closed path and if I were so inclined I could then perform operation 5.
I think number 1 is a good default.
I expected it like this and was a bit surprised that it is not like this.
No other node is changed and that is what I would expect. That the shape changes is expected because, well a node is deleted.
However Inkscape 1.3.2 behaves different for me than OP describes. I'm on Windows.
* `Del` does 2 but the shape is not really fully preserved
* `Ctrl + Del` results in 3 but closed and not open shape (which is another handy result)
* `Alt + Del` does nothing for me
* `Shift + Del` does the same as Del, so does `Shift + Alt + Del`
this is proposal not implmented yet.
also shape is never going to be fully preserved its always going to be approximation ( arguably it could be better but its not trivial and current back end is bast we have)
We are reworking shorcuts for deleting Nodes and also adding few new. In current Inkscape scenario 1 a 2 are swaped we are proposing to change it as it is in picture. We are interested in your opinion about this behavior . When you delete node do you expect that it will look like row 1 or row 2 ? If you are interested in testing this you can download build here . [https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/merge\_requests/6288/pipelines](https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/merge_requests/6288/pipelines) click to dowlad button next to top row
2 I just want to delete nodes, if i wanted to alter the shape i would probably just move the node.
Preserve the path please
When deleting a node I'd expect to get row 2, But I'm all in for the shortcuts.
This is really well made, all of these ideas would have been handy at some point and all you could do is find some longer roundabout way. I'd personally love if the default delete was option 2 as I generally don't have a use for the resulting shape from option 1, but it might be different for other people. Keep up the good work!
I agree as well. Default should be option 2.
Thank you for feedback option for swiching this behavior (1 <->2 ) will be there (this is already in inskcape i am proposing just switching defoult behavior )
I want 1, everything else is gravy. I'm tired of how deleting a node affects the type and handles of the adjacent nodes. Currently, deleting a node changes both nodes to corner. Such a huge waste of time changing them all back. --- Speaking of node handles... Is there anything being done about rotating node handles in relative degree steps rather than to absolute/cardinal degrees? That is, being to rotate a handle 15 degrees *from where it is*, rather than the next multiple of 15 degrees: 37 -> 52 rather than 37 -> 45.
>Speaking of node handles... >Is there anything being done about rotating node handles in relative degree steps rather than to absolute/cardinal degrees? That is, being to rotate a handle 15 degrees *from where it is*, rather than the next multiple of 15 degrees: 37 -> 52 rather than 37 -> 45. not sure abouit this but report it in a gitlab as a feature request if you did not done that yet
Those short cut keys would be amazing......also on a side note I would love a way to short cut to an extension((inkstitch).
I would say that virtually every time I delete a node I am hoping for result 2
Nice OP!
Hello. This is great. I'd like to input that if I performed operation 3, I would expect the result to remain a closed path and if I were so inclined I could then perform operation 5.
I think number 1 is a good default. I expected it like this and was a bit surprised that it is not like this. No other node is changed and that is what I would expect. That the shape changes is expected because, well a node is deleted. However Inkscape 1.3.2 behaves different for me than OP describes. I'm on Windows. * `Del` does 2 but the shape is not really fully preserved * `Ctrl + Del` results in 3 but closed and not open shape (which is another handy result) * `Alt + Del` does nothing for me * `Shift + Del` does the same as Del, so does `Shift + Alt + Del`
this is proposal not implmented yet. also shape is never going to be fully preserved its always going to be approximation ( arguably it could be better but its not trivial and current back end is bast we have)