Hello,
I'm animating some symbols for a slot game that fly in from the left of the screen and land in position on the reels. I want to animate the symbols along a path and need the symbols to land in a precise position.
However as far as I can see, the placement of path vertex points is not accurate as you can only click them into position with the mouse.
Is it possible to position the vertices by entering in a precise value or is there another way you can suggest?
Many thanks,
Steve 
️
Path Vertices - positioning them accurately?
There isn't numeric entry for vertices, sorry. In many situations eyeballing it is sufficient, though I know there are times where more accuracy is needed.
You could create bones for each vertex, zoom in and place the path vertex as close as possible to the bone position, then use the Weights view to bind the path to the bones. Weight the vertices 100% for the corresponding "vertex" bone. Now you can place the bones numerically and the path vertices will match.
Another thing you can do is to not rely on the placement at the end of the path to be exact. When attachments moving along the path reach the end, you could stop using the path to control the placement of the attachment's bone. Ie, change the path constraint mixes to zero and set the bone position explicitly.
Nate
Many thanks for your reply Nate, i'll give your suggestion of attaching the path to bones & zooming in to be as precise as possible. Also, turning off the mix just before landing in place is a great work around for now too!
Do you think this is something worth implementing into Spine or is there not much user requests for accurate vertex placement?
Kind regards, Steve ️
Originally we did have numeric input for vertices, but found it simpler not to have it. It comes up from time to time, so we'll likely add it. The Spine UI needs to be adjusted to make space for it.
A stopgap could be snapping vertices to bones. Then at least you could place a bone numerically, snap vertex to it, and then delete the bone. It's not an ideal workflow because it takes so many actions, but it's more precise than the workarounds I mentioned above.