The dot attributes are the same:
strict digraph G {
forcelabels=false
ratio=fill
splines=spline
overlap=scale
size="1.3,1.3"
node [shape=circle,
fixedsize=true,
width=6,
label="",
color="black",
fillcolor="#6666ee",
style="filled,solid"]
The .png files show different node sizes:
Sorry, I am not able to upgrade the other .png since I am a new user!
What may be the reason?
[I’m confused, but I’m often confused, so I’m used to it.]
I see 5 small purple-ish circles that are arguably the same size. Let me ask some questions:
dot -V
I see 5 small purple-ish circles that are arguably the same size.
Yes, there are two .dot files, one with five circles symmetrically arranged, the other with six circles symmetrically arranged too. The difference in the nodes sizes is only between the outputs, although in both dot files the default width attribute is 6, but in fact this attribute does not seem to have an effect on the circle size. I will put the files on the end of this reply, if the forum allows me to do so.
Let me ask some questions:
what version of dot are you using? run dot -V
dot - graphviz version 2.43.0 (0)
what OS are you using (Linux, WIndows, MacOS, …)?
Linux Mint 20
how different are the node sizes - 1 or 2 percent, 50 percent, …
the circles for the 6 nodes graph are twice as big
what program(s) do you use to look at the .png files - MS paint, gimp, a web browser, ??
Xviewer 2.6.2
Have you tried producing a different file format (svg, jpeg, gif, …) If so, were the sizes different?
No, I did not. The pngs are processed further (with LaTeX), so the visual size is not changed by this. Also adding edges to the dot input has no effect on the circles sizes.
will you include your entire input file, the source above is incomplete
strict digraph G {
forcelabels=false
ratio=fill
splines=spline
overlap=scale
size="1.3,1.3"
node [shape=circle,
fixedsize=true,
width=6,
label="",
color="black",
fillcolor="#6666ee",
style="filled,solid"]
edge [arrowsize=15,
penwidth=5]
1 [pos="0,8.1!"];
2 [pos="-9.9,1.1438!"];
4 [pos="-5.5356,-8.6!"];
5 [pos="5.5356,-8.6!"];
3 [pos="9.9,1.1438!"];
t1_2 [width=0.0,pos="-8.8,1.9167!"];
t2_1 [width=0.0,pos="-1.1,7.327!"];
t1_3 [width=0.0,pos="8.8,1.9167!"];
t3_1 [width=0.0,pos="1.1,7.327!"];
t2_4 [width=0.0,pos="-6.02,-7.5173!"];
t4_2 [width=0.0,pos="-9.415,0.0612!"];
t3_5 [width=0.0,pos="6.02,-7.5173!"];
t5_3 [width=0.0,pos="9.415,0.0612!"];
t4_5 [width=0.0,pos="4.3055,-8.6!"];
t5_4 [width=0.0,pos="-4.3055,-8.6!"];
t1_4 [width=0.0,pos="-4.9205,-6.7445!"];
t4_1 [width=0.0,pos="-0.615,6.2445!"];
t1_5 [width=0.0,pos="4.9205,-6.7445!"];
t5_1 [width=0.0,pos="0.615,6.2445!"];
t2_3 [width=0.0,pos="7.7,1.1438!"];
t3_2 [width=0.0,pos="-7.7,1.1438!"];
t4_3 [width=0.0,pos="8.185,0.0612!"];
t3_4 [width=0.0,pos="-3.8205,-7.5174!"];
t5_2 [width=0.0,pos="-8.185,0.0612!"];
t2_5 [width=0.0,pos="3.8205,-7.5174!"];
}
strict digraph G {
forcelabels=false
ratio=fill
splines=spline
overlap=scale
size="1.3,1.3"
node [shape=circle,
fixedsize=true,
width=6,
label="",
color="black",
fillcolor="#6666ee",
style="filled,solid"]
edge [arrowsize=10,
penwidth=5]
1 [pos="0,9!"];
2 [pos="-7.7942,4.5!"];
3 [pos="7.7942,4.5!"];
4 [pos="-7.7942,-4.5!"];
5 [pos="7.7942,-4.5!"];
6 [pos="0,-9!"];
t1_6 [width=0.0,pos="0,-6.75!"];
t6_1 [width=0.0,pos="0,6.75!"];
t1_2 [width=0.0,pos="-5.8457,5.625!"];
t2_1 [width=0.0,pos="-1.9486,7.875!"];
t1_3 [width=0.0,pos="5.8457,5.625!"];
t3_1 [width=0.0,pos="1.9486,7.875!"];
t2_4 [width=0.0,pos="-7.7942,-2.25!"];
t4_2 [width=0.0,pos="-7.7942,2.25!"];
t3_5 [width=0.0,pos="7.7942,-2.25!"];
t5_3 [width=0.0,pos="7.7942,2.25!"];
t6_4 [width=0.0,pos="-5.8457,-5.625!"];
t4_6 [width=0.0,pos="-1.9486,-7.875!"];
t6_5 [width=0.0,pos="5.8457,-5.625!"];
t5_6 [width=0.0,pos="1.9486,-7.875!"];
t2_3 [width=0.0,pos="5.8457,4.5!"];
t3_2 [width=0.0,pos="-5.8457,4.5!"];
t4_5 [width=0.0,pos="5.8457,-4.5!"];
t5_4 [width=0.0,pos="-5.8457,-4.5!"];
t4_3 [width=0.0,pos="5.8457,3.375!"];
t3_4 [width=0.0,pos="-5.8457,-3.375!"];
t5_2 [width=0.0,pos="-5.8457,3.375!"];
t2_5 [width=0.0,pos="5.8457,-3.375!"];
t1_4 [width=0.0,pos="-6.82,-2.8125!"];
t4_1 [width=0.0,pos="-0.9743,7.3125!"];
t1_5 [width=0.0,pos="6.82,-2.8125!"];
t5_1 [width=0.0,pos="0.9743,7.3125!"];
t6_2 [width=0.0,pos="-6.82,2.8125!"];
t2_6 [width=0.0,pos="-0.9743,-7.3125!"];
t6_3 [width=0.0,pos="6.82,2.8125!"];
t3_6 [width=0.0,pos="0.9743,-7.3125!"];
}
I think image scaling is causing the node size issues.
I think the image scaling as the reason too. But I miss a true control of it. It seems to me somewhat arbitrary. I checked the topics you proposed. Nothing was helping! The ratio attribute seems to me to be necessary, as I want to integrate the resulting pngs in a LaTeX table. I could find out, that a node width value 0.3 results in very tiny circles, so I kept a big value supposedly meaning, that any maximum size is used. But I did not find anything about such a maximum size. In contrast I found a strange effect not justifiable by the graph layout: In fact removing all the 0.0-width nodes in the 5-nodes graph effected, that the nodes appeared (nearly) as big as within the 6-nodes graph. But adding only one node “t4_5 [width=0.0,pos=“4.3055,-8.6!”];” again led to the smaller size. Note, that t4_5 lies between the visible nodes 4 and 5.
For unknown reasons, neato was messing with your pinned layout. Here are reworked versions that seem close to your goal.
Note: use neato -n or neato -n2 to produce your output
strict digraph G {
// use this command: neato -n2 -T...
// pos values were multiplied by 5
// widths are guesses
graph [bb="-60,-60,60,60"]; // generated manually
node [color=black,
fillcolor="#6666ee",
fixedsize=true,
label="",
shape=circle,
style="filled,solid"
];
// p1 and p2 exist to guarantee squareness - same X & Y dimensions
p1 [pos="-55.000000,-55.000000",
shape=point,
width=.01,
style=invis];
p2 [pos="55.000000,55.000000",
shape=point,
width=.01,
style=invis];
1 [pos="0.000000,40.500000",
width=.1];
2 [pos="-49.500000,5.719000",
width=.1];
4 [pos="-27.678000,-43.000000",
width=.1];
5 [pos="27.678000,-43.000000",
width=.1];
3 [pos="49.500000,5.719000",
width=.1];
node[width=.05]
t1_2 [pos="-44.000000,9.583500"];
t2_1 [pos="-5.500000,36.635000"];
t1_3 [pos="44.000000,9.583500"];
t3_1 [pos="5.500000,36.635000"];
t2_4 [pos="-30.100000,-37.586500"];
t4_2 [pos="-47.075000,0.306000"];
t3_5 [pos="30.100000,-37.586500"];
t5_3 [pos="47.075000,0.306000"];
t4_5 [pos="21.527500,-43.000000"];
t5_4 [pos="-21.527500,-43.000000"];
t1_4 [pos="-24.602500,-33.722500"];
t4_1 [pos="-3.075000,31.222500"];
t1_5 [pos="24.602500,-33.722500"];
t5_1 [pos="3.075000,31.222500"];
t2_3 [pos="38.500000,5.719000"];
t3_2 [pos="-38.500000,5.719000"];
t4_3 [pos="40.925000,0.306000"];
t3_4 [pos="-19.102500,-37.587000"];
t5_2 [pos="-40.925000,0.306000"];
t2_5 [pos="19.102500,-37.587000"];
}
And
strict digraph G {
// use this command: neato -n2 -T...
// pos values were multiplied by 5
// widths are guesses
graph [bb="-60,-60,60,60"]; // generated manually
node [color=black,
fillcolor="#6666ee",
fixedsize=true,
label="",
shape=circle,
style="filled,solid"
];
// p1 and p2 exist to guarantee squareness - same X & Y dimensions
p1 [pos="-55.000000,-55.000000",
shape=point,
width=.01,
style=invis];
p2 [pos="55.000000,55.000000",
shape=point,
width=.01,
style=invis];
1 [pos="0.000000,45.000000",
width=.1];
2 [pos="-38.971000,22.500000",
width=.1];
3 [pos="38.971000,22.500000",
width=.1];
4 [pos="-38.971000,-22.500000",
width=.1];
5 [pos="38.971000,-22.500000",
width=.1];
6 [pos="0.000000,-45.000000",
width=.1];
node[width=.05]
t1_6 [pos="0.000000,-33.750000"];
t6_1 [pos="0.000000,33.750000"];
t1_2 [pos="-29.228500,28.125000"];
t2_1 [pos="-9.743000,39.375000"];
t1_3 [pos="29.228500,28.125000"];
t3_1 [pos="9.743000,39.375000"];
t2_4 [pos="-38.971000,-11.250000"];
t4_2 [pos="-38.971000,11.250000"];
t3_5 [pos="38.971000,-11.250000"];
t5_3 [pos="38.971000,11.250000"];
t6_4 [pos="-29.228500,-28.125000"];
t4_6 [pos="-9.743000,-39.375000"];
t6_5 [pos="29.228500,-28.125000"];
t5_6 [pos="9.743000,-39.375000"];
t2_3 [pos="29.228500,22.500000"];
t3_2 [pos="-29.228500,22.500000"];
t4_5 [pos="29.228500,-22.500000"];
t5_4 [pos="-29.228500,-22.500000"];
t4_3 [pos="29.228500,16.875000"];
t3_4 [pos="-29.228500,-16.875000"];
t5_2 [pos="-29.228500,16.875000"];
t2_5 [pos="29.228500,-16.875000"];
t1_4 [pos="-34.100000,-14.062500"];
t4_1 [pos="-4.871500,36.562500"];
t1_5 [pos="34.100000,-14.062500"];
t5_1 [pos="4.871500,36.562500"];
t6_2 [pos="-34.100000,14.062500"];
t2_6 [pos="-4.871500,-36.562500"];
t6_3 [pos="34.100000,14.062500"];
t3_6 [pos="4.871500,-36.562500"];
}
We could possibly introduce a notation for units, e.g. width= “6pt”, width=“0.5 in” maybe the same year that a space colony is established on Mars.
I could not reproduce your results. The 5 (big) nodes example looks for me as: ???(I do not know how to include png! The nodes with different sizes are located arbitrarily! The same with your second example.) I am wondering, why you did not use the exclamation mark to force the positioning, but an attempt on my part in this direction resulted in an image showing no nodes at all.
I made also further trials on the base of my dot files: I added corner points, as you did. I added a bb attribute to the graph. I used neato with -n and with -n2. No one of them had an effect on the strange behavior I described. After adding the zero-sized node t4_5 the nodes 1…5 are only half as big. Btw I do not have this effect with adding t2_3.
Here my result for your first example.
… and here for the second one.
Platform and graphviz version always as mentioned above.
My command line: neato -Kfdp -n -Tpng -o steveroush1.png steveroush1.dot
ok, I see: -Kfdp was messing up the nodes! Omiting it produces your image.
… but I have another issue with neato -n and neato -n2 now:
I want straight arrows, even they are laying one over the other. Here my dot file:
strict digraph G {
forcelabels=false
ratio=fill
splines=spline
overlap=scale
size="1.3,1.3"
node [shape=circle,
fixedsize=true,
width=0.15,
label="",
color="black",
fillcolor="#8888ee",
style="filled,solid"]
edge [arrowsize=0.5,
penwidth=1]
1 [pos="-9.9,9.9!"];
2 [pos="-9.9,-9.9!"];
3 [pos="9.9,9.9!"];
4 [pos="9.9,-9.9!"];
t1_2 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-9.9,-4.4!"];
t2_1 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-9.9,4.4!"];
t1_3 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="4.4,9.9!"];
t3_1 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-4.4,9.9!"];
t1_4 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="4.4,-4.4!"];
t4_1 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-4.4,4.4!"];
t2_3 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="4.4,4.4!"];
t3_2 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-4.4,-4.4!"];
t2_4 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="4.4,-9.9!"];
t4_2 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-4.4,-9.9!"];
t3_4 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="9.9,-4.4!"];
t4_3 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="9.9,4.4!"];
1 -> t1_2
t1_2 -> 2 [dir="none"]
2 -> t2_1
t2_1 -> 1 [dir="none"]
2 -> t2_3
t2_3 -> 3 [dir="none"]
}
The original graph generated with dot -Kfdp was, as in the next reply. (Silly restriction!)
Can you give me a hint, how I can generate it with neato?
Here:
splines=false (Attributes | Graphviz) will probably do what you want.
Note that your pos values are legal but may cause problems (pixelation?). You graph is defined as ~.27"x.27". (pos units are points - 72 per inch)
Yes, splines=false yields, what I want. As I observe, the pos values are scaling with the size value. But a white margin is disturbing me.
How can I control it?
I tried margin=0.0 on graph level without an effect. I am not aware about the defaults on nodes and edges. Here my dot file:
strict digraph G {
forcelabels=false
ratio=fill
splines=false
overlap=scale
size="1.56,1.56!"
margin=0.0
node [shape=circle,
fixedsize=true,
width=0.20,
label="",
color="black",
fillcolor="#8888ee",
style="filled,solid"]
edge [arrowsize=0.7,
penwidth=1.5]
1 [pos="-9.9,9.9!"];
2 [pos="-9.9,-9.9!"];
3 [pos="9.9,9.9!"];
4 [pos="9.9,-9.9!"];
t1_2 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-9.9,-4.4!"];
t2_1 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-9.9,4.4!"];
t1_3 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="4.4,9.9!"];
t3_1 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-4.4,9.9!"];
t1_4 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="4.4,-4.4!"];
t4_1 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-4.4,4.4!"];
t2_3 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="4.4,4.4!"];
t3_2 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-4.4,-4.4!"];
t2_4 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="4.4,-9.9!"];
t4_2 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="-4.4,-9.9!"];
t3_4 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="9.9,-4.4!"];
t4_3 [width=0.0,style=invis,pos="9.9,4.4!"];
1 -> t1_2
t1_2 -> 2 [dir="none"]
2 -> t2_1
t2_1 -> 1 [dir="none"]
2 -> t2_3
t2_3 -> 3 [dir="none"]
}
Ad my post from May 11: The node size is dependent from the distance of t4_5 from 5. Moving t4_5 a little further away from 5 lets get the nodes bigger, but not as big as they are in my 6 nodes example. It seems this is an effect of overlap=scale.