IsabelAracama

Thanks Alfred and G13RL both worked very well!
Yes more of a general solution to a problem.. But now.. why this? I cannot get to understand why if reversing or flipping it works? Some mathematical explanation that will send me bog eyed? 🤯

I’m sure there’s a mathematical explanation, Isabel, but all I know is that when working with the contours/curves for the glyphs in a font it’s a standard thing to reverse the direction when you want to create a counter (or ‘hole’) for something like the middle of a letter O.

Thanks Alfred and G13RL both worked very well!
Yes more of a general solution to a problem.. But now.. why this? I cannot get to understand why if reversing or flipping it works? Some mathematical explanation that will send me bog eyed? 🤯

Hi @IsabelAracama,
Try rotate the outer shape by -90° and "Horizontal Flip" the inner shape before subtracting.

If you’re subtracting a smaller circle from a bigger one to make a donut shape, try converting the smaller circle to curves and reversing it (Node Tool > Reverse) before performing the subtraction. In this particular case I would just use the Donut Shape Tool, but I’m guessing that you’re looking for a more general solution to the problem.
Edit: ‘Horizontal Flip’ as suggested by @G13RL is better than ‘Reverse’ because you don’t have to convert to curves first.

Always also check how a webbrowser (Firefox, Chrome etc.) shows things up here and how the the plain generated SVG code looks like inside an Texteditor then. That will give you some indication and hints of what might go then wrong here between apps.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd"> <svg width="100%" height="100%" viewBox="0 0 800 600" version="1.1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xml:space="preserve" xmlns:serif="http://www.serif.com/" style="fill-rule:evenodd;clip-rule:evenodd;stroke-linejoin:round;stroke-miterlimit:2;"> <g transform="matrix(1,0,0,1,89.3302,32.4528)"> <path d="M283.706,84.779C371.258,84.779 442.339,157.502 442.339,247.077C442.339,336.652 371.258,409.375 283.706,409.375C196.153,409.375 125.072,336.652 125.072,247.077C125.072,157.502 196.153,84.779 283.706,84.779ZM283.706,136.177C347.634,136.177 399.536,185.87 399.536,247.077C399.536,308.284 347.634,357.976 283.706,357.976C219.777,357.976 167.875,308.284 167.875,247.077C167.875,185.87 219.777,136.177 283.706,136.177Z" style="fill:rgb(231,231,231);"/> </g> </svg>  

Has to do with the fill mode, winding vs alternate, the inside gets fill with one but not the other.

Attached are a set of AD Textured Intensity brushes made from images of cloud formations.
 
There are just four brushes here, created as an experiment - in search of lovely textured brush strokes.
The attached image gives a nice demonstration of the look these offer.
 
Raising a toast to the New Year (2017), Affinity Designers developers (keep it up!) and fantastic community.
Thanks all!
 
 
 

CD_cloud_brushes.afbrushes.zip

The "No fill" and "No stroke" top dialogs display this miniature icon that is almost imperceptible. I guess it is not supposed to look like that?

Hi IsabelAracama,

This is something we're aware off and with development to be fixed. 

It's a small world hahah

It's a small world hahah

Not as pressing, but the "A" text layer icon is also loading small.

Seeing these issue across all 3 apps after 1.9 update. 
Using MacOS Catalina 10.15.17 on  iMac 27-inch, Late 2013 (non-retina)

Isabel, I am having about the same problem in 1.9.  But also in the color panel.

The "No fill" and "No stroke" top dialogs display this miniature icon that is almost imperceptible. I guess it is not supposed to look like that?

Delicious Michael! 😍
 

Delicious Michael! 😍
 

Car all vectors no raster layers

Yes, currently this is only available in Photo. I'm filling an improvement request to add it to Designer as well.

Thankyou, I'm stoked how it eventually turned out. Although personally vector realistic leaning content creation methods are definitely via my very limited experience still challenging, in terms of accruing a 'level of fluency' that imo comparable too 3d asset generation end-to-end...if not more so.
And again appreciate taking the time commenting on those areas needing further attention, also it's interesting you'd picked up on the painterly aspect which indeed was the intended aim since this piece will be gifted too dear family friends, celebrating their wedding anniversary, appropriately framed of course
I'm might try my hand at drawing a 3/4 frontal view of the same car, whilst resolve the aforementioned faults or at least near enough.
Cheers.

Hi Isabel
Thank you very much and sure no worries, don't mind at all. I'm actually flattered that you'd thought it good enough too re-post on your students gallery or in general plus the course was personally an insightful learning process about a digital 2D drawing technique I was previously unaware of, so again my expressed thanks for sharing your expertise.
Cheers.

Hey sacboi! I just found this by pure chance!! It is great and I am so happy I discovered it!!
I love to see what ppl come up with, especially when the result is so good! Do you mind if I post this on my student's gallery and show it on a couple of posts? (with your name on it obviously hhh) It came out really well, and so did the Porsche 911!
Pity I didn't see this thread before! Congrats and thanks for taking the class by the way
 

Thank you, definitely a method of 2D content creation worth further exploration.

Finally calling this done. Certainly put more that a few hours into it but nonetheless overall, pretty happy with the end result alongside learning a heck of alot as well. Anyways I'm going to further explore this particular illustrative method as too whether other subject matter I've in mind can also be rendered realistically. 
Cheers.