|
From: Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...> - 2006-09-03 00:38:28
|
Daniel J Sebald wrote: > Richard Henwood wrote: > > >>Anyway... here you go: >> >>http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/cll/skills/eportfolio/students/eportfoliodirectory/current/phrfaj/gnuplotproblems/gnuplotfontproblem2.png > > > Furthermore, there is something interesting about the polygon > compared to what I see in the x11 "test". In your screenshot > the polygon looks nice and symmetric. In the x11 test on my > screen (see below) I'm seeing an asymmetric polygon. The > aspect ration for the two screen shots is about the same. > I can understand that the lines might be a different thickness > and that sort of thing. But why should the aspect ration of > the polygon be so different? This seems to be an issue with x11 dimensions. (Guess I recall this now.) test_term() assumes the ratio is 1:1 by virtue of for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { corners[i].x = cen_x + radius * cos(2*M_PI*i/n); corners[i].y = cen_y + radius * sin(2*M_PI*i/n); } There is no attempt to make the polygon appear symmetric. Of course, the formula could be appropriately scaled to attempt a symmetric hexagon, but even that won't work so well. For the x11 terminal, t->xmax and t->ymax are fixed at 4096 in x11.trm. The ramifications of that are not that important right now, but I do wonder why if x11.trm assumes 4096 by 4096 the default window size in gnuplot_x11 is static unsigned int gW = 640, gH = 450; You'd think a logical choice would be to make the ratio t->xmax : t->ymax the same as the ratio gW : gH. (I know, just change .geometry in the X resources.) As a simple test, I've changed # define X11_YMAX 4096 to # define X11_YMAX 2880 inside x11.trm. Then in gplt_x11.c I've gone through and modified all the spots where a 4096 should be 2880 and 4095 should be a 2879 to get the plot aligned correctly. (These numbers should be derived from a #define value.) Below is the before and after screen shot for a non-resized x11 window. Dan |