It doesn't really work good, soooooooo
yes, i know mine doesnt work too well, thats why im fixing it
No i mean, mine doesn't work well. It's just a bajillion of circles.
it still works, does it not?
Children. Chill out.
The reason I said js isn't that it can't be done in Snap!, just that it can't be done by setting the pen width different from its height. There are lots of ways to achieve the same effect, e.g., by stamping rectangles. But we don't expose the rectangular-pen solution to users. (In fact, I'm only guessing that there is such a thing, but I'm guessing yes, precisely so that people can design fonts in the browser.)
have you tested them out yet?
I was just trying to find out how I could try making something.
Anyways, sorry that I made you mad.
its fine. I just got flashbacks from when I first started snap and somebody needed help, and @dardoro helped them before i could finish it. I got soo mad, I distinctly remember saying, out loud, "i hate you dardoro" lol
Kind of. That would only allow for calligraphy where pure horizontals or pure verticals are thickest.
I was about to say "no, you can turn the sprite" but I guess the Canvas pen is always a rectangle, huh?
Maybe turn the sprite and stamp it?
STAMPing is low-quality, whereas drawing is high(er)-quality.
Interesting. I guess costumes have limited resolution. You learn something every day.
Then never mind pen size; just draw small line segments back and forth like a Roomba. :~)
I seem to recall you having once said not to SET COSTUME TO PEN TRAILS then STAMP because of the fact that STAMP isn't high-quality.
Let me make a script to see if I know what you mean there.
Edit: Like this?:
Yeah. Except thickness 1 would be even better -- less jaggy.
What does calling MAXIMUM with one input do?
Anyway, this (interpolation) is precisely what the animation library is for. Lots of options for the rate of change -- it doesn't have to be linear. But since you're not actually doing a time-critical animation I guess that part doesn't help. But check it out anyway.
I'll check it out when I get around to it.
Geez. Anyone else would use ITEM 1 OF.
In the 1-item-list scenario, but that isn't what I have in there--I have (essentially) this: