The SA is not the problem. The problem is the CSA like Internal Paths are additional paths added to a pattern piece. In the case of the CSA it’s added to main path. The intenal paths are not a problem as they don’t affect the SA, where a CSA obviously does. The SA code is messy enough, and adding the CSA in the mix makes it even messier. The SA code gets into all these nested IF / ELSE statements - is it built in, are there double notches, is the seam line hidden, is the cutline hidden… then on top of it does it have any CSA’s? The Union tool already needs work with the iPaths, and I have never even tried to untite 2 pieces with either having any CSA’s. I have my doubts if RT ever tried.
1 Like
I think what I would do is add the corner angle options first as that would not affect the existing CSA. Then we could look at removing the CSA, and possibly adding a conversion of sorts to the new method to maintain some compatibilty. Although I’m always hestitant to change the app’s behavior, in this case it may be one “feature” we could just cut and it wouldn’t even be noticed. And to be honest, as I’ve pointed out, the only thing the CSA does is shade (fill) the entire CSA area… which commerial patterns don’t do anyway, nor does a Seamly “layout”.
2 Likes
