Jump to content

JimmyJack

Members
  • Content count

    821
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JimmyJack

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

630 profile views
  1. Wasn't there an image attached to the last post? Anyway, I was referring to the red .1 strokes in between all the pieces. In what (I thought) I saw, they seemed off. Not where we left off last. I assume it's okay because of what you wrote. You know where you can find me.
  2. Hi @Steve_N thanks for the shout out. Glad to help. However, the red lines still look quite a bit offset.
  3. @Friksel You don't have to convert to curves. Just hit the period key to toggle back and forth to the "bounding box" of your choosing.
  4. @Steve_N If you care to post the rooster. I can see if I can put my big mouth to the test!
  5. @Steve_N I really don't think so. Whole thing should take but a couple minutes. Just need one added step. Make a copy of the strokes before expanding.
  6. I have a different interpretation of your starting point. If it's like the beginning of this GIF then there's no reason you can't do this in just a couple steps... regardless (within reason) of piece count (... because of a couple of Affinity peculiarities the process should actually be simpler than it is). Process after the GIF: FYI...The process does, however, leave a "tiny" (up to you how small) channel in-between objects. My quick example it's ~5/1000mm. I'm sure you could go smaller is needed . But I also don't understand this part of your description, "....and brush tool to create broader laser etching areas" The idea is simple: Select all your lines give them a tiny stroke Expand stroke Boolean Add all Boolean divide Discard the big piece on the bottom Done BUT.... Affinity gives bad results expanding "tiny" strokes. So: Select all your lines Resize them to something HUGE. (like this) Edit: well maybe not THAT big. Tried it.... too many nodes. Go just big enough to make it work. Might take an experiment of two. Give them all a "reasonable" stroke. I used 1. (and check the Mitre to make sure any corners are sharp) Expand stroke Boolean Add all Boolean divide Discard the big piece on the bottom Shrink all the parts back down Done Oh and Affinity also likes to expand strokes with an excessive number of nodes. On a simple line style it might not be so bad. Just keep in mind, the bigger you go to more nodes you'll get! This hopefully will be fixed in v1.7. (....or I'm outta here )
  7. JimmyJack

    eps file

    No it's not. Yes it is clear, the word Flute designates it as a corrugated material. Like I said, if it were a heavy card stock then the grain direction would be taken into consideration instead.
  8. JimmyJack

    eps file

    Ohhhhhh. I get it. You're thinking that the insert is called "the Flute". (...and after all that Googling ) No, the insert is just an insert. This is cardboard fluting: What he said! And if it wasn't corrugated it would probably say "GRAIN" instead.
  9. JimmyJack

    eps file

    To me flute just means your everyday standard ol' laminated cardboard (in it's various weights/configurations). As opposed to, say, the cardboard of a cake box.... no interior structure. But yeah, technically the "Flute" is the interior corrugated part. If you look at cardboard's edge/cross section, it's the wavy stuff (if not cut, obviously, along the length of a furrow).
  10. JimmyJack

    eps file

    Yes, an entity in it's own right (the black dotted line should be solid all the way as in the original)...... but not glued. That piece is cut off, folded and used as a separate interior part of the packaging to accommodate the product pieces (or shape)... and, as a result, add a little bit of structure across the width to boot. So, I'm guessing, the object(s) to be shipped consists of one main long piece and two smaller sections separated by the central bump outs. (Or... one big piece that has some kind of central bump outs that the insert echoes.... (but I'm going with the first one ))
  11. @Sackadelic Just wanted to point out that you have an FX on the main logo which ensures that it will be rasterized on output, so not sure if wrestling with a million little vectors is worth it. And, if rasterization is inevitable why not consider some of the great artistic brushes in Photo (if you have it) which, imho, get you closer to the desired effect. Otherwise, if you want to keep as many elements as possible vectors, then you might want to try and separate and isolate the FXs as their own objects. IOW, if you create an independent object with the blur effect inside the main logo then "Fralin" itself will remain a vector.
  12. Yes, we need a "Transform Each" pretty badly!! @seyed My advice: Take the dots into Inkscape. You'll be done in 30 seconds. Bring the result back into AD if you want. This is a true edit each solution. But, If you want to stay exclusively in AD: There's no reason to have to do these individually by hand. (well maybe a couple of them, because in your example if you increase the dimension by that much some of the dots will overlap which will cause a problem in a group operation.) BTW, The reason you're getting a "hole" in the middle is because the stroke is greater than the dot radius and crossing over itself. In this case ignore it . (the following is just one way to do it..... also assumes you do NOT want a hole in the center... but, that wouldn't be a big deal either) 1) select all dots (btw these aren't perfect circles.... is that correct?) 2) make the stroke whatever you want. (Ideally(?) to the point of no dots overlapping. Ignore the "hole".) 3) Expand stroke (to all at once). 4) Boolean Divide (again to all at once). 5) Boolean add (again to all at once). If the desired target size causes overlap, those areas will need individual attention. And it goes without saying..... this is not an all purpose solution and definitely not a suitable substitute for a dedicated Transform Each function. (in the GIF I give the dots a fill just to show that the "messed up" stroke on the inside is there. It's not a step in the process) Edit: just came back to say that if you do have a fill when doing this there will be circles left underneath the new Curves item that will need to be deleted. No fill.... no worries.
  13. Hmmmm. Crashing - not good . But it is interesting. So we might have differing problems. BTW here's a link to my first post. It was about bringing in EPS' into 3D software that only accepted Illustrator 8 files. There's an example there with what I discovered.... but things have changed slightly since then. Since you crashed though, and I did not, my solution/workaround might not be a cure all. This what I get bringing one of your files into 3D as an Affinity EPS saved with Minimize Size. Imported as Polylines.... Seems to work (although now I notice the dashed lines didn't come in dashed... they, at least for my program, need to be divided into separate objects - yikes). Here's a new test. In order for a successful import for me these criteria must be met: (at the very least, I don't get crashes, so I'm not sure any of these additional requirements will help you.) 1) Minimize Size must be checked in export options 2) Fill does not matter, only stroke. But the stroke size don't matter..... . 3) anything with hole in it must be divided so each object is separate (my import into 3D has an option called "auto axis drill" which reconstitutes the holes). I guess this is also true for the dashes. So anything that is a Curves object must be Divided. Here's a screen grab of a Designer file with several options and what I get in 3D. Notice that the two bottom ones get the same import result.
×