Why does inkscape use a "tiled clones" command sequence instead of an "array" sequence? Most people would not associate an array with a tiled clone. Why should someone need to waste time reading a manual to discover something that should be as easy as it is common?
Array is more common in CAD, engineering and programming.
Tiling and patterning are more common in illustration tools. In SVG, Pattern has a very specific definition, so tiling is a preferred term for repeating objects.
1. The time saving way - Create the single iteration of an object and give the command - array > circular - then tell the dialog that I want 13 of them in a 4 inch diameter circle with a specific rotation of each in the array. [ 1 panel opens to do it. ]
OR
2. The "look what I can code way" - Create the single iteration of an object.
Manually define it as a pattern.
Choose the size - oh, well, only if it is not a circle.
Your link says - "At the bottom of the dialog is a fixed section where you can choose the size of the tiling either by the number of rows and columns or by the width and height of the area you wish to cover. The terms Rows and Columns are only really appropriate for tiling of rectangular tiles (see below)."
Then manually determine which of the 17 symmetries are most appropriate.
Then use the shift, scale and rotation tabs to "tweak it" as though I were kerning text. "Play until it looks right."
Then enter the XML editor to adjust the base tile size if I think the object would look better with a little more height.
Do most of it again.
Or, maybe, learn some "special tricks" to play it into shape as the handbook actually says that it does not work for circles. [ I mean this statement to show that the instructions can be misleading.]
All of this took me 30 minutes to explore - let alone try to do on a project. If I have to do this weekly, I loose about 25 hours of coin at the end of the year. [if $30 per hr = appx $600 not donated to Inkscape.]
Regardless of the culture it comes from - if it is faster work methodology, it should be used. Illustrators will be thankful too. [ XML editor = programmers = know what an array is.]
A linear path effect in 1.1 may do it, if it gives the option of changing the orientation of individual elements relative to each other. [ More intuitively and faster than an array dialog? ]
Transform > rotation takes too long as one has to manually conduct and enter the calculation data for each new iteration.
The rotation handles do not space the iterations.
SIDE NOTE - there needs to be a command to automatically return a moved center of rotation to its original location. At least, it should be easy to find in the software when off net. And, the center cross needs to larger and easier to find.
Forum Testing More off-topic annoyance
Inkscape.org
Why does inkscape use a "tiled clones" command sequence instead of an "array" sequence? Most people would not associate an array with a tiled clone. Why should someone need to waste time reading a manual to discover something that should be as easy as it is common?
Array is more common in CAD, engineering and programming.
Tiling and patterning are more common in illustration tools. In SVG, Pattern has a very specific definition, so tiling is a preferred term for repeating objects.
Which would be faster?
1. The time saving way - Create the single iteration of an object and give the command - array > circular - then tell the dialog that I want 13 of them in a 4 inch diameter circle with a specific rotation of each in the array. [ 1 panel opens to do it. ]
OR
2. The "look what I can code way" - Create the single iteration of an object.
Manually define it as a pattern.
Choose the size - oh, well, only if it is not a circle.
Your link says - "At the bottom of the dialog is a fixed section where you can choose the size of the tiling either by the number of rows and columns or by the width and height of the area you wish to cover. The terms Rows and Columns are only really appropriate for tiling of rectangular tiles (see below)."
Then manually determine which of the 17 symmetries are most appropriate.
Then use the shift, scale and rotation tabs to "tweak it" as though I were kerning text. "Play until it looks right."
Then enter the XML editor to adjust the base tile size if I think the object would look better with a little more height.
Do most of it again.
Or, maybe, learn some "special tricks" to play it into shape as the handbook actually says that it does not work for circles. [ I mean this statement to show that the instructions can be misleading.]
All of this took me 30 minutes to explore - let alone try to do on a project. If I have to do this weekly, I loose about 25 hours of coin at the end of the year. [if $30 per hr = appx $600 not donated to Inkscape.]
Regardless of the culture it comes from - if it is faster work methodology, it should be used. Illustrators will be thankful too. [ XML editor = programmers = know what an array is.]
A linear path effect in 1.1 may do it, if it gives the option of changing the orientation of individual elements relative to each other. [ More intuitively and faster than an array dialog? ]
Transform > rotation takes too long as one has to manually conduct and enter the calculation data for each new iteration.
The rotation handles do not space the iterations.
SIDE NOTE - there needs to be a command to automatically return a moved center of rotation to its original location. At least, it should be easy to find in the software when off net. And, the center cross needs to larger and easier to find.