ELinder

I took the above example scene and operated on only the inner wedge of curves. When adding you can see that not only are co-positional points not properly welded together, but extra points are added where they should not be. The further example has the history also saved to it. Erich error_example-further.afdesign

OK, thanks! Erich

I looked at this example to see if it's related to one I recently posted. I do 3D modeling also, and it looks like issues I've had in that realm where points that are supposedly co-positional are not properly welded together in the boolean operations even when they should be. The results in slightly different curve shapes left over, so the boolean operations do not work as they should. Erich

I tried the current Mac version of Designer Beta (1.7.2.2 - RC1) and the issue is still there, so it's not covered in the "general fixes and improvements'. Or did you mean the fix hasn't gotten to beta status yet? Erich

I guess we can't move our own posts, so I'll have to link to the thread I started.

I did some more testing, and it's definitely something to do with curves. Straight geometry no matter how complex works as expected. Zooming very close to the artifacts in many cases there is curve faceting visible, as if the curve is not actually smooth and is being drawn differently depending on which shapes are being operated on, resulting in a slightly different curve shapes and then leaving the differences as the leftover artifacts. Erich

I'm working thru the Designer workbook in 1.7.1 on my Mac, and when I try the ice cream cone geometry boolean exercise, I'm seeing something strange with the divide exercise. It took me a while to figure out the illustration was only after they had (unwritten) manually repositioned the major pieces to show it. However, when I do the divide with the 4 large original shapes I get a total of 58 curves including 48 tiny sliver slices in addition to the major resulting pieces. That can't be the way the divide tool should work should it? Erich

Thanks for the clarification. In that case you should probably use point changes such as Edition 1.1 for revisions and corrections.

I recently received my Designer Workbook and have a question. It states that it is Edition 1.0 (reprint 5) but also states that it was created for Designer 1.7 and above. That is confusing. Has it been updated with any corrections errata or include changed content for 1.7 or is this the same version as originally published? If it's the original, is there a list of any corrections somewhere that I need before I start working the exercises? Erich

No, you misunderstood what I meant. That setting is for that layer only. I mean a transparent fill and stroke that would affect all layers underneath as well. As a partially opaque colored fill or stroke would affect the layers underneath it, so the transparent fill or stroke would effectively clip anything underneath. See the thread I mentioned for an explanation for what I'm trying to achieve in the simplest way possible. Erich

I have been attempting to find a way to more easily create a hidden line drawing such as is a common view option in 3D modeling packages. If we could have a transparent fill and transparent stroke that behaved like the colored fills and strokes, ie, hide or overwrite anything underneath them with all their control flexibility and options, it would be a very useful option to have. See this discussion for what I mean with examples. https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/87115-hidden-line-mode-for-only-strokes/ Thanks, Erich

Yes, I tried that with both Pixelmator Pro and Super Vectorizer 2. It works to a fashion, but it's never going to be as crisp as finding a native vector solution. Come to think of it, not just a "transparent fill" would be useful, but a "transparent stroke" that is as controllable as a colored stroke. Erich

The point was to have only lines visible without using fills, otherwise all transparent. A hidden line wireframe like view common in 3D modeling applications. Erich

Wow, I hope there's an easier way. It'd be faster to restart from scratch than doing all that with every one of my multiple overlapping shapes.. Erich

Well rats. No, I didn't know erase blend mode would rasterize on export. I'm working with a printer who specifically asked for an all vector EPS file. Are there any options that would remain vector on export? I'd really rather not have to completely redraw a large composition. What I need is a "transparent fill" where it renders anything underneath transparent. Erich