The code adds some completely useless invisible (or rather white) stuff. The lines
\clip(0pt,403pt) -- (389.957pt,403pt) -- (389.957pt,99.6166pt) -- (0pt,99.6166pt) -- (0pt,403pt);
\color[rgb]{1,1,1}
\fill(3.76406pt,399.236pt) -- (380.923pt,399.236pt) -- (380.923pt,253.19pt) -- (3.76406pt,253.19pt) -- (3.76406pt,399.236pt);
\fill(53.4497pt,394.719pt) -- (374.901pt,394.719pt) -- (374.901pt,289.325pt) -- (53.4497pt,289.325pt) -- (53.4497pt,394.719pt);
draw a white background that is larger than the actual picture. TikZ sees that and thinks it is part of the picture. Simply removing/uncommenting these lines removes most of the whitespace.
Near the end of the first scope,
\color[rgb]{1,1,1}
\fill(3.76406pt,249.426pt) -- (386.193pt,249.426pt) -- (386.193pt,103.381pt) -- (3.76406pt,103.381pt) -- (3.76406pt,249.426pt);
does the same.
Additionally (near the end of the second scope
),
\pgftext[center, base, at={\pgfpoint{220.95pt}{106.392pt}}]{\sffamily\fontsize{9}{0}\selectfont{\textbf{ }}}
adds a blank node below the picture, again enlarging the bounding box.
Removing all those lines gives a tight bounding box.
As far as I know, TikZ cannot do the cropping for you, as it can't know whether the white stuff is intentional or not (there might for example be a dark background behind the image so that white is visible).
The source of the difficulty is that ellipses are constructed in a particular way in TikZ. They are paths that start from the x-axis and proceed counter-clockwise around their centre. The vast majority of the time, the exact parametrisation doesn't matter. You appear to have found the one situation where it does!
In the actual question, you only want to be able to mirror the ellipse, and so draw it starting from the negative x-axis (the title of the question suggests a more flexible approach). That's actually not too hard since we can exploit the symmetry of the ellipse. The key is to provide it with a negative x-radius, since then it will start from the negative x-axis (and proceed clockwise, but we could correct for that by negating the y-radius as well). To do this, we interrupt the call from the node shape to the drawing command and flip the sign of the x-radius. The simplest way to do this is to redefine the \pgfpathellipse
macro to do the negation and then call the original macro. The following code does this.
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations,shapes,decorations.markings}
\makeatletter
\let\origpgfpathellipse=\pgfpathellipse
\def\revpgfpathellipse#1#2#3{%
#2%
\pgf@xa=-\pgf@x
\origpgfpathellipse{#1}{\pgfqpoint{\pgf@xa}{0pt}}{#3}}
\makeatother
\tikzset{
reversed ellipse/.style={
ellipse,
reverse the ellipse%
},
reverse the ellipse/.code={
\let\pgfpathellipse=\revpgfpathellipse
}
}
\begin{document}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[ellipse,
draw,
postaction={
decorate,
decoration={
markings,
mark=at position 1 with {
\arrow[line width=5pt,blue]{>}
}
}
}
] at (0,0) {hello world};
\node[reversed ellipse,
draw,
postaction={
decorate,
decoration={
markings,
mark=at position 1 with {
\arrow[line width=5pt,blue]{>}
}
}
}
] at (0,-2) {hello world};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{document}
Here's the result:
(the arrow got clipped, but you can see where it lies)
Best Answer
I think the best approach is to use Lindenmayer systems.
The following code defines a Lindenmayer rules for drawing a single "arm" of the snowflake. I think it is crucial that the "arm" is symmetric. Then this arm is repeated rotated 60 degrees each time to produce the complete snowflake.
Changing the Lindenmayer rule, the angle turned by the rules
+
and-
, and the line width, an astonishing number of possibilities flourish. Unfortunately these kind of figures take a time to compile, so I became impatient before trying other rules, and I decided to post the preliminary results. But it is so much fun to play with these parameters that I'll probably come back with more designs :-)The following figure uses only two rules, which I named "A" and "B":
F -> FF[+F][-F]
F -> ffF[++FF][--FF]
The snowflakes in each row use the same rule and angle, and the different aspect is due only to change in the line width. The rules and angles for each row are:
This is the code:
I have to play with the axiom too! :-)
Update
Inspired by the page suggested by Torbjørn T., I tried to reproduce the first one:
For that I used a new rule:
And the flakes were drawn with:
Update: Playing with axioms
The same rule (C) used in previous example can produce different variations if we start with an axiom different of the simple
F
.I devised a new rule, aimed to produce flakes of the type "plate", which can also produce interesting variations depending on the axiom. This is the rule:
And these are some variations: