laurent32

That might help others… I think it has to do with the video card… I re-started my Mac and everything is back in order… Anyone with that same "rare" problem ? Video card conflict ?

Now what happened to my doc ? All is gone wild !! Have you seen this before ? Thanks for your ideas…

I wonder right now if one can search text for some specific horizontal scale values… I'll have to look after that…

Nice idea @thomaso, thanks !

hi @Dan C here you go for the file : test.afpub here you go for the video : screen 2023-12-14 à 18.39.13.mp4

Thanks you both @GarryP & @Murfee for answering. While we're at it, I discovered that when I copy a grey block and paste it, I get an annoying space before or after the block (a space that I did not copy at first) and also if I copy the block with some text before or after it, and then I paste the whole thing, the block is not pasted… 2 tricky behaviors… are you aware of those ? I would call that a bug…

I think I found the way to do it : is that it ?

Hi all, Maybe a dumb question… I might be a little tired these days… Here is an example (the real doc has many many blocks)… In this case, I want to select all the grey boxes that are 15mm long and make them 20mm long… If I use select, I can select them all but then how can I change their length in one go ? My third grey block in line one seem to be annoying me… I can't use the transformer tab… Thanks for your help… Here is the test file : test.afpub

Great job @R C-R !! You identified the problem with my blue file ! And also I did some tuning on my Python3 code and everything seems to be back in order now ! Thanks all for your knowledge.

That's what I do, tried again, still have the problem so I guess I have to have a closer look at Python3 and Pillow… Both of them have been updated not long ago… Pillow might not be great in png manipulation ? But then why is it good with my green file… a mystery… If I find an answer I'll post it here… Thanks @NotMyFault and all.

I'm not sure, and I don't know if it could have an incidence… But I think… — I initially selected pixels and erased them to build my transparency for the problematic blue file. — I initially used vector tool to build my transparency for the green working file. I searched my disks and found my original blue file (jpg that I turned into a png with transparency) : Can you turn that jpg file into a png with transparency ? Maybe I'm doing something wrong ? Maybe your png will work ok ?

Nice idea @NotMyFault, but… I tried twice, the routine is still ok with the green one and NOT OK with the blue one… There must be something different in that blue file… or in that green file ??? I mean other than what you just found (which is nice).

Thanks for the idea @NotMyFault. The problem is that I did not use the palletized option, I export with the standard png profile : BUT your answer made me remember that i do use ImageOptim to get more compact files. Here are my ImageOptim prefs : ImageOptim could cause the problem then… ? So… how could I work on the files that have the problem to revert back to a "normal" png file ? Exporting a new png file, with "palettisé" untick does not correct the problem. Thanks again for your help.

This png file gives the problem : While this one doesn't : They both are png files with transparencies. I really wonder why they are not treated the same way by my Python routine using the Pillow package for a simple resize ? Can anyone tell me if there is a difference in the way those 2 files are built ?

Yes @GarryP, the problem might come from one of the packages I use in my .py routine (PIL)… First I wanted to check if I was missing something evident in Affinity photo 2. I'll send part of my routine in an upcoming post.

Hi Walt, Here is what I've got with my original affinity file : Here is what I get when I export to a png file with affinity : And here is what I get if I open back in affinity photo 2 the file I get after using a python routine : Is that the information you wanted ?

Hi all, I've got a python warning telling me : "UserWarning: Palette images with Transparency expressed in bytes should be converted to RGBA images" when I use a png image with transparency in my routine. How can I convert (export ?) my png file in order to bypass that warning message ? Here is my source file : Here is the file I get with my routine : There is a problem, I lose my transparency (see green px)… Thanks for your help.

Hi all, Trying to input an indent to here… Here are my prefs (example) : Here is what I get using the top menu : And here is what I get acting from a text block : Can't seem to be able to have the same shortcut… I think this is because I have a French extended keyboard, and there is a problem with the mapping of keys ? Maybe on a US keyboard, you have ")" where we have ";" ? But there is obviously another problem since I get 3 different shortcuts (that don't work) !!! All this + my "AFB-7229" problem is quite laborious… Thanks for your prioritization… PS, this is what I've got :

Thanks @Barry Newman

I wanted to say that sometimes I report what I believe to be a bug but it isn't. But sometimes it is a real bug and then Affinity tags my topic. So, sometimes my topics get tagged by affinity, and sometimes they don't…

To summarise : I wanted to do CMD-F "AFB-7229" and get : - 6/ it's an old story, everything is ok now, for sure… But I'll have to wait, the bug is still present in the actual release… and that bug bugs me !!!!! yes @thomaso, is't maybe more "oh, my god" for GB and "oh boy" for USA ? I'm not sure… LOL

This was my second point, my feature request…

@thomaso, I'll try to explain better… Let's imagine I open a new topic… Let's imagine Affinity tags my topic with some ABC-1234… Nobody knows that tag has been used, it's Affinity's tag… But now, some days later, I do a simple search on the forum to see if Affinity did a comment on my topic, maybe to give me some good news… i decide to search for ABC-1234 : I find nothing, I thought I would… There, @walt.farrell gives me the advice to use "search by tags", and that's the solution, even though I would have appreciated to find the result with the "standard" search… Now, I open a second topic, speaking about the first one AND in that second topic I input ABC-1234… It is now logical that the standard search finds ABC-1234 because it is in the text part of my second topic… This is what I was pointing out… Well… I think we should be able to search for tags in the standard search and not only in a specific "tag search" area… That's my opinion… But all this is not very important… the more important is to eradicate bugs !!

I can say I know you a little bit, so I'd say "one or two THOUSANDS things" !!!!!

Yes, if the tag is already present in the conversation (is conversation a correct word for English ?) but no, if it is not, and this was my case… My post was tagged BUT no-one had used afb-7229 in some text part of posts… Oh boy, I'm not sure I'm correctly speaking here… @walt.farrell please help me… LOL