As you can see the labels are duplicated and sometimes cutoff. That is because one tile doesn't know about the other tile. How can I prevent?
Disabling Partial labels helps a bit with the cutoff but the duplication is still there:
Thanks
Apart from #IvanSanchez's reply here: https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/346467/preventing-clipped-labels-from-qgis-server-wms-in-leaflet-js.
You can actually set the tileSize to the width/height of your map and you won't have these kind of problems because the whole map would consist of 1 tile (although this solution will put extra strain on the MapServer). tileSize is part of the GridLayer definition: https://leafletjs.com/reference-1.7.1.html#gridlayer.
Param: tileSize
Default: 256
Type: number|Point
Def: Width and height of tiles in the grid. Use a number if width and height are equal, or L.point(width, height) otherwise.
Related
I am implementing a container which algins its children in a row and does kind of a linebreak when there is no horizontal space left. Thus, the required height depends on the available width. For larger widths, more content fits in one line and less lines are needed leading to less height. For smaller widths, less content fits in one line and more height is needed.
I subclassed the container and implemented the needed logic. The minimum width of the container is set to the minimum width of the widest child which would display one extreme case where there are stacked lines, some of them with only a single child inside them.
The problem is as follows: The window displaying the container has a very large height, for some cases even larger than my monitor. I am able to resize the window except that I cannot decrease the width. It turns out that the documentation for height-for width geometry management says:
Next, the toplevel will use the minimum width to query for the minimum height contextual to that width using gtk_widget_get_preferred_height_for_width()[...]. The minimum height for the minimum width is normally used to set the minimum size constraint on the toplevel (unless gtk_window_set_geometry_hints() is explicitly used instead).
Thus, the behaviour is expected as the window uses the height for the minimum width as its minimum height leading to the previously mentioned extreme case. This seems to be counterintuitive as in my case and an example used in the documentation (textflow in labels) the height will be maximal when the width is minimal vice versa. Only when actually allocating the available space, gtk considers to assign smaller heights when a larger width allows that. Even when using high widths in the window's default size and size request only the minimum width of the container is considered to derive the required height of the window.
The documentation already somehow contains a workaround, namely the geometry hints. But this seems to be a verbose and static way of sizing the window when the default width of the window together with the height-for-width-function could theoretically be used to easily determine the size of everything. The size-allocation already works as intended, only the size-negotiation cancels the benefits the height-for-width function could bring here. Is there any nice way of implementing the functionality required to fix the window sizing?
It seems as there is no intended workaround for this problem the way I searched for. The gtk size negotiation goes from bottom to top when requesting sizes and top to bottom when allocating. Thus, my container has no way of knowing how much width its parent could assign to it.
I solved the problem by adding a property which defines the minimum of children per row. This can be used to increase the minimum width and therefore decrease the minimum height. I only use it for the minimum width calculation while actually ignoring it doing the real size allocation which only is a minor detail I will document.
This documentation will be part of the code example I will provide as an answer to my old post which was about implementing a FlowBox with the behaviour described above.
I'm confused with the bar with adjustment in MATLAB, for example, when use bar like:
bar(randsample(0:0.0001:1,100),randn(100,1))
I get an image like this:
It seems like the bar is too thin to have a good look. After searching for help, I can use the code like:
bar(randsample(0:0.0001:1,100),randn(100,1),50)
and I get this:
Seems much better. But if I change the sample number from 100 to 10, the same code won't work.
bar(randsample(0:0.0001:1,10),randn(10,1),50)
I hope I have explained my issue clear. It seems like the third parameter of the bar function is a relative width, which correlates to the input size of the first and second parameter. Can I fix the absolute bar width no matter how many data points input? or there is a better function to draw figures like this? Thanks a lot for any help!
user #am304 is right about the width parameter
What happened in your code is that you set x values to results from randsample(0:0.0001:1,10)
If you give your plot a width of 1 it means that 2 bars which are directly next to each other would touch each other with an equally spaced x.
In your case, you have an irregular x spacing.
The width of the bar is determined by the minimum distance between two x values (which you get from randsample()). Sometimes this space - and therefore the width of your bar - is very tiny. Sometimes it is broader.
Change the with to 1 and make multiple plots. You will notice that two are always touching each other and no one is overlapping and all the others have spaces in between. If you change the width to 50 the plots will somethimes overlap heavily (depending on the randomness from randsample) because your bars are 50 times bigger then the minimum width between two x values.
In case of your randsample(0:0.0001:1,100) example it is just more likely that two values are close to each other, therefore increasing the width helps you see something (because the bars overlap).
From the documentation:
bar(___,width) sets the relative bar width, which controls the
separation of bars within a group. Specify width as a scalar value.
Use this option with any of the input argument combinations in the
previous syntaxes.
The example provided is as follows:
Set the width of each bar to 40 percent of the total space available
for each bar.
y = [75 91 105 123.5 131 150 179 203 226 249 281.5];
bar(y,0.4)
So bottom line is: the width is specified as a % of the total space available for each bar. Yoru problem comes from the fact that you have far too many bars, so the space available for each bar is tiny. Setting the width to 50 or 5000% of the space available just means that each bar will overlap quite substantially on the neighbouring bars. Because you have so many, the middle plot looks "reasonable" as I suspect a lot of the bars are overlapped and a lot of them are at zero, so you just can't see them. If you go down to a sensible number of bars, as in your last example, then setting the width to 5000% looks ridiculous as you found out.
So to summarise: reduce the number of bars and specify the bar width between >0 and 1 (1 being no gap, all the bars touching each other).
A better way to plot things with random x locations is to use stem. By default, it draws a line from the zero line to the datum, with a circle representing each datum. But this can be modified. For example:
stem(randsample(0:0.0001:1,100),randn(100,1), 'Marker','none', 'LineWidth',4)
creates a plot similar to your second attempt, but with bars of a fixed width (4 points).
Leafletjs has a function pad(x) for increasing the latLng bounds. How do I shrink it? I've tried putting a negative number in there with little success.
I'm basically trying to see if a marker is within the current view, and if not center on that marker. But some markers can be plotted right on the edge of view and still be classed as in view. I'm trying to add inner padding on the current viewport bounds to avoid this.
if(!map.getBounds().pad(-1.5).contains(marker.getLatLng()))
You can use the paddingTopLeft, paddingBottomRight or padding options of L.Map's fitBounds method:
Sets the amount of padding in the top left corner of a map container that shouldn't be accounted for when setting the view to fit bounds. Useful if you have some control overlays on the map like a sidebar and you don't want them to obscure objects you're zooming to.
http://leafletjs.com/reference.html#map-paddingtopleft
map.fitBounds(layer, {'padding': [n, n]})
The negative value range for pad() is 0 to -0.5.
https://github.com/Leaflet/Leaflet/issues/5741
edit: link basically states that pad takes in a ratio of 1 not a typical percentage value. So to decrease the bounds by 50% (which would visually make it 0, because the left bounds would go in 50% to the middle, and the right bounds would also go in 50% to the middle, etc) the parameter value would be pad(-0.5) NOT pad(-50)
to increase add a positive ratio.
I have some problems with SKSpriteNode. If I do this:
var node1=SKSpriteNode(imageNamed:"image1");
var node2=SKSpriteNode(imageNamed:"image2");
self.addChild(node1);
self.addChild(node2);
Then image2 will appear in front of image1 (and that is good).
But if I do this:
var node1=SKSpriteNode(imageNamed:"image1");
var node2=SKSpriteNode(color:UIColor.redColor(),size: CGSizeMake(0,0,300,300)));
self.addChild(node1);
self.addChild(node2);
Then image1 will appear in front of node2-rectangle. Why does it do that?
I’m surprised that even compiles—CGSizeMake should only take 2 arguments (width, height), as opposed to CGRectMake, which takes 4 (x, y, width, height). In other words, it looks like you’re creating node2 with a size of (0,0). Try …size:CGSizeMake(300,300) instead.
From Apple's documentation...
The default value (of SKView's ignoreSiblingOrder property) is NO, which means that when
multiple nodes share the same z position, those nodes are sorted and
rendered in a deterministic order. Parents are rendered before their
children, and siblings are rendered from eldest to youngest. When this
property is set to YES, the position of the nodes in the tree is
ignored when determining the rendering order. The rendering order of
nodes at the same z position is arbitrary and may change every time a
new frame is rendered [emphasis added].
Can anybody please tell me what is the exact difference between stretching and scaling an image? Because you can anyway set the size of image and imageView both to match your requirements.
It depends on how you define stretching, but I would divide scaling into two distinct options based on whether or not the aspect ratio is preserved. Often it is desired to preserve the aspect ratio when scaling an image.
I would consider an increase in one dimension, but not proportionally in the other to be a "stretch". Similarly, a decrease in one dimension, but not proportionally in the other would be a "squash".
You may find this Daring Fireball post interesting.
Stretching sounds like showing small size (10x10) image at (100x100) or (100x10). so some times it gets pix-elated.
And scaling means to show a image to different size either small or big with maintaining its aspect ratio (programmetically), so it will look not improper, because when you stretch to different aspect ratio then some objects in image gets improper visibility.
Stretching (in iphone IB) means '9-slice scaling', scaling means just scaling.
When stretching you can determine which part of the image may be used for stretching and which part may not. For example when you have a rounded square, you do not want the roundings to stretch, especially when you're only stretching horizontally or vertically.
You indicate that you only want to use the middle pixel to stretch by (in IB) setting the X & Y values to 0.50 (half way) and the width & height values to 0.00 (minimum amount of pixels)
Lookup contentStretch in the docs for more info
when you don,t keep the congruence of your image, you see the image incongruous and height and width of your image is not suitable for showing. for resolving this issue you can multiply your image's width and height to to a constant coefficient.
Stretching and scaling don't mean anything different except maybe in connotation.
Is there a particular piece of text somewhere that you are trying to understand? Maybe we can help with that.
stretching image is stretching the size of a small image.
on the other hand scaling of image is scaling the image accoring the the viewport's width and viewport's height....
scaling can be done by small as well as large image.
you should take a good quality image and then should scale it
sprite.setscale(x,y);