andrew wrote:Entities are displayed in the same order they are drawn / modified. There should be no relation to layers at all.
We may not be talking about the same thing; I don't know. I created a drawing, a layer, an entity on that layer, hatched it, and created a second layer; this appeared in the Layers palette above the first layer. On the second layer, I created a set of entities and hatched them in a different color. (I say 'hatch' since that is QCad jargon but they are all simply solid fills.)
Now, onscreen at least, I see the first entity and its hatching (which I understand to be treated as a distinct entity). I see the second set of entities "showing through" the solid hatch; but their
hatching is invisible: covered by the first layer's entity's hatching. If I make the first layer invisible, the second layer's entity's hatching becomes visible.
Ergo, the hatching is rendered not in order of creation. It is inconsistent that the object lines should "show through" a solid fill; I don't know what I think about that.
Incidentally, just now, I attempted to create a clean demonstration and got reverse display (of what I have in my working drawing) of layer creation. So, I don't know what to expect.
The demo drawing, again, has the second hatch created, partially obscured by the first hatch. Again, both sets of object lines are visible. It seems that the second entity, created on the second layer, knocks out the object line of the first created, on the first layer (as one might expect). It's only the hatching that works contrary to expectations.
This forum doesn't have file attachment; so I don't know what to do with the demo file.
I agree that I might well satisfy my needs by creating only sets of lines in QCad and exporting them for further work in Inkscape. I've used this sort of back-and-forth work flow with success at other times, although then, I was going from vector to raster editing. This may turn into a three-step process: QCad for mathematically correct lines, Inkscape for properly layered fills and annotations, the Gimp for raster work. I can't say I eagerly anticipate the process.
Strange to say that I've used most available graphics editors that have come out since 1984 and no one of them has come up to the flexibility of pen, ink, and paper, used with some skill and a few related tools. I have done a great deal of work in these past years and I agree that the computer makes it go more quickly, on average. But in all that time, I think I have never done a better
drawing than my best by hand.
If you want to see the demo, please tell me where to put it. Otherwise, I think we've beaten this horse to death. I don't expect a new feature to be added by request; I merely hoped I'd overlooked something or failed to understand.