【转帖】getpattern90 does not do what the doc says
 

getpattern() does not do what the doc says ?
getpattern() does not do what the doc says ?
while we are on the pattern subject, may i ask the the following question :
the documenttion says that calling phatch->getpattern()
...returns the hatch pattern definition for this hatch entity as it appears in the pat filefff">....
this does not look true:
in the ac .pat iso file, the angle definition is
0.0000,0,0,0.0000,6.9850,5.0800,-1.9050
90.0000,0,0,0.0000,6.9850,5.0800,-1.9050
but getpattern() return this :
0.0000,1.5593,0.4197fff">,0.0000,6.9850,5.0800,-1.9050
90.0000,1.5593,0.4197fff">,0.0000,6.9850,5.0800,-1.9050
that is there is an originx and originy value added to the definition.
it is not the orginx/y that is given in the hatch properties
how to obtain the exact .pat definition (as says the documentation) ?
thanks
if use getpattern with angle definition obtain right value.
i use dwgdirect 2.2.0.0
last edited by rareba; 25th january 2007 at 03:45 amfff">.
i use dd 2.2 also.
you obtain the right ("pure") definition only if the x-origin and y-origin has been set to 0,0 in autocad . as soon as there is an origin other than 0 specified in the pattern properties, you no longer get the pure definition.
it may be. i don't know what do you mean with "if the x-origin and y-origin has been set to 0,0 in autocad" because i have autocad 2002 and i can't set the origin from pattern properties.i know now this is possibile i think with newer autocad version.
yes, it is possible to edit the x/y-origin in the pattern properties in autocad 2007, and when you create a hatch pattern you may specify that the origin point be :
- the default hatch origin ( command hporigin )
- a specified origin
- a corner of the hatch enclosing rect.
now it is clear. probably phatch->getpattern() with the oldest version agree with definition in a pat file and the documentation it is not update. may be do you obtain the right value with a subtraction with phatch->originpoint()?
last edited by rareba; 26th january 2007 at 01:51 amfff">.
see
sergey slezkin