JimmyJack
-
Posts
1,350 -
Joined
Posts posted by JimmyJack
-
-
45 minutes ago, R C-R said:
Can you (or anybody) explain what looks like a double curve in the screenshot?
Yeah, it does look a little funny. It's just one curve profile.
-
15 minutes ago, dozens said:
Yes!
Yours should have worked too. I wonder what the problem was.
-
3 hours ago, Dylan SJ Perez said:
I've messed with the width more (using finer adjustment and decimals) and that seems to have worked, I can't tell if it's 100% perfect but seems like it is, it'll work for now until a setting to automatically take care of this is implemented, thanks!
If you want all the dots to be just touching each other, then the diameter of the dots has to divide evenly (as much as we can) into the circumference of the circle right?
And the diameter of the dots is the line width in the all touching scenario. So πD/#circles=the line width that will work.
If you're working with an oval, I'd suggest using an oval circumference calculator.
-
34 minutes ago, gdenby said:
Hey, JimmyJack,
Way way too clever, he says with envy. Bit of fuss to get the 2 dots at start and end only, but after that, yeah, works great as long as the base curve isn't reshaped.
Ha! Thanks
.
Yeah, reshaping will knock things out of whack. For that, the text option mentioned by @R C-R does much better. With that method, I just can't get the dots to go all the way on either end. They get close but not all the way (which makes sense). Certainly something that can be worked around though.
-
On April 17, 2017 at 7:33 AM, exorchrust said:
The problem is i need different counts of dots for my project several times, so it seems like i will have to spend some time trying to perfect it manually.
I don't think you need to think too much here.
Just once really. The only math you need is the ability to subtract 1
.
My two dots, er, I mean cents
:
1) Pick a stroke width (This, sort of, can be adjusted later... but with limits. Best to do it first.) and make sure all fields are Zeros in the dash settings.
2) Now adjust the second number field so there are just two dots. One at the beginning and one at the end of your curve. Takes a couple seconds.... I went to two decimal places (see the first curve below. My number ended up being 23.74).
--- the hard work is over ---
3) Whatever X# of dots you finally want, just type into that second field "/" and X-1. So, for three dots: "/2", for four dots: "/3", for five dots: "/4", for seventeen dots: "/16" etc. All will be evenly spaced.
(the number you are dividing by is actually the number of spans in between points)
- exorchrust, teo balsamo and gdenby
-
3
-
If you want an EXACT match, why not use the font itself on a text curve (I used the dash....play with spacing and baseline shift).
Or, at the very least.... (and especially if you eventually need to do something with curves)
Make a brush from the font itself (2nd pic). I used a couple different straight sections end to end to create a little more variety (of course you can also play with pressure too).
- StuartRc, gdenby and firstdefence
-
3
-
2 hours ago, R C-R said:
Also, had this been a flat scan that did not require stretching, do you think the Affine filter would have produced such awful results? I wasn't aware that by itself the Affine filter would involve any resampling, unless it was not pixel aligned....
Hmmm. Not really sure what's going on now.
The Affine shift all by itself introduced the blurriness, not the stretching.
Maybe it is a pixel align thing, but everything looks fine pixel wise in the transform panel (and yes both pix align & whole pix are on). Yet a similar image is fine run through the filter. Something is happening....
It just feels beyond my control.
-
Yeah. Most can be done in AD. The composite, the clip, the dodge tool.
But you would really need to use the warp tool to push things into place (in this particular instance). Unfortunately thats only in photo.... right now.
-
20 minutes ago, MaryLou said:
Okay, are you going to let us in on the secret? Your results look pretty good!
No real secret. I think the same method outlined in other posts.
Except now all of the elements needed are there.
I used the image above (the one with the ruler) to create a full image with everything needed. (it took three images)
Used a clip (illustrated here by the black outlined box....made by eye and some guides) of the composite as a start to the tile.
Took that into APhoto and used the gawd awful Affine filter (50% and 50% shift), and stretched some things to fit with the warp tool.
(The last step is necessary because this is a photo. The lens warp makes even identical elements slightly different. Wouldn't have been needed if it were a flat scan.)
Oh. and I used the dodge brush (midtones) a little to match lightness along some edges.
Edit: if I were to do it again I'd skip the Affine and just move things manually....
-
Certainly it would help to have all of the imagery.
This more complete image was easy to find. I don't think it would be too much of a problem now.
Maybe not the one button magic that @MaryLou is looking for.... but doable.
Edit: This was pretty quick (.....certainly not super perfect).
BTW... look at the quality degradation from the Affine filter. The internal Nearest Neighbor rasterization has got to go. Basically it's Auto Destroy.
-
How about a vector mask on the shape (or hands, but that requires a second image layer).... totally non-destructive and flexible.
Here's what the mask looks like.
-
On January 17, 2018 at 0:22 PM, J a n said:
Hello,
I have problem with vector brushes in Designer. Yesterday I created drawings and figures and in the morning I applied the "DAUB_VectorSet_Vol2" brush. Everything ok but in the afternoon I used same brush on other characters and everything is wrong. Setting is the same, the brush is the same. Same document size. But "repeat" is different every time.
A - OK
B - bad
I tried the Beta version, same problem.
How do I set the Repeat function for a vector brush? How do I set the number of reps?
If, on object A, you click "scale with object" in the stroke panel you will get the the result seen in B.
Which makes me think that object A was scaled up with "scale with object" UNchecked before applying the stroke and object B was created at size?
This at least recreates the issue and might get us closer to an answer (which in the end is probably.... bug).
@firstdefence: Yeah I saw that too. While I don't think its causing the difference it is interesting that it's there which would seem to indicate a different starting point and/or process of creation. Which is even weirder because @Jan specifically mentions that "they are created exactly the same as the original"....
-
And now....once again....for some reason...
Going from consolidated to separate and back is unchecking Show Right Studio.
So i think it all just FUBAR.
-
So the fact that the right panel changes I made don't translate between the modes got me thinking....
What if other settings are specific to each state?
And in fact the Show Tools setting is!! Having it checked in consolidated does not mean its checked in separated. They are independent.
That's what I thought might be the issue.
The Show Toolbar and Show Context Toolbar do seem to be universal. So I can't explain those appearing in one state and disappearing in the other.
-
1 minute ago, R C-R said:
Unless my old eyes are just too weak to see them, besides the Tools panel it looks like the Affinity Photo Main & Context toolbars are also missing. Does toggling on either or both make any difference?
Look at the layers panel. It shows a Black & White Adjustment layer above the Pixel layer. Uncheck that & my guess is the color will be restored.
Yes more is missing. Which confuses the problem.
I CAN REPRODUCE @DianeF's problem when it come to the tool bar.... but not the others.
@DianeF can you post a picture of the same thing in non-separated mode please? Don't touch any other settings...
-
9 minutes ago, R C-R said:
Well then, I am officially & thoroughly clueless about what causes the Right Studio disappearance, your rendering error, or Diane's MIA Tools panel.
I think maybe there are just too many possibilities here for a 'one size fits all' diagnosis or fix. Maybe the OS version has something to do with it, or Metal vs Open GL, or who knows what else.
Well, I'm back to report that clicking Show Right Studio seems to have fixed the whole thing on my end.
From time to time though it seems to get unchecked by some operation or key stroke that I haven't pinned down. I'm certainly not unchecking it.
But now I can clear it up.
Also interesting is that changes done to the right studio panels in separated mode are NOT reflected in the right studio on return. Looks like they are two separate beings. Hmmm.
-
17 minutes ago, R C-R said:
EDIT: I just saw what @JimmyJack wrote about the same issue I was having with the Right Studio disappearing. I would be interested in knowing if my fix works for him as well....
Nope. In fact, in separated mode hitting Reset Studio causes a render error for the histogram panel.
And the right side is still blank coming back into consolidated mode.
Also, hitting reset causes any customization to disappear.
If I have to go through extra steps, I'd rather just hit View > Studio > Show Right Studio when back in consolidated mode.
-
1 hour ago, R C-R said:
Regarding all the other panels, in Separated Mode have you noticed that Studio panels can be grouped together, more or less like in the default for Normal Mode, or separated into individual tabbed or un-tabbed panels, but it is difficult to add an individual panel to a group (so the whole group can be moved around as a single unit), & that changing the height of a panel group can't be done but dragging downward on its bottom edge?
Oh yes, I've noticed. I still prefer all the support windows together. This option is available in PShop on Mac, going back to at least CS4.
1 hour ago, R C-R said:Also, is it just me or does anyone else see the behavior I mentioned earlier where switching back to Normal from Separated Mode in the retail versions hides the Right Studio? I think @DianeF said this was not happening for her, so I would like to know if this is something I need to fix on my system, different for different Mac OS versions (I am using High Sierra), the result of some system or application preference setting I am using that others are not, or what.
Well my answer was about to be....Yes! .... and It's annoying!!
BUT I just temporarily fixed it...... and I don't know how. Was fine for a few stress tests. And then I broke it again.... and I don't know how. (At least the Beta seems more stable when it comes to this particular issue.)
32 minutes ago, DianeF said:....but I am still unable to see the left side Tools panel in Separated Mode.
@DianeF is it possible to post a full screen grab of your separated none-tool bar screen? Or better yet, a quick vid of it disappearing when switching back and forth?
-
11 hours ago, Erider said:
Hi everybody !
I currently have a problem with textured borders under Affinity Designer (1.6.1.93).
These do not close properly as you can see in the attached image (whether on a font or on a vector object ... even on a simple circle).
I tried all the possible options of borders and brushes, without result.
Did I miss something? Do you have a solution ?
Thanks !
This is because the brushes you're using have textured endings to them. They can work if you break the node at your indicated circle positions and use a round or square cap option. This, however, is just a way to overlap the ends. It may or may not yield an acceptable result.... especially if the image used for the stroke has any transparency.
Also, and more importantly, it would require changing the fonts to outlines and addressing every single letter. Not fun.
Or
The other option is:
Make a new brush with straight cut off ends.
You can make it from a stroke using an existing brush with the ends masked off. (Just make sure the resolution is what you need.)
-
50 minutes ago, Cedge said:
Jimmy
I arranged them to suit the available space while experimenting. Truth being told the 3 up is just to prove it could be done. They were then manually resized to fit between the existing tool bars. Otherwise the darned things were stacked all over the place Two panes with several images sub docked in one of them is far more usable.
SteveYeah, I got ya. Stacked all over the place.... yup.
I was hoping for some photoshop-like options:
(3-up stacked does, in an instant, what you (edit: WE) have to wrangle into place,.)
-
26 minutes ago, Cedge said:
You have to un-clip the image file from the file display bar and then arrange the panels to suit your taste.
Ah. So the 3-up was manually done. Presets would be nice.
13 minutes ago, Cedge said:Diane,
I'm on a PC. If you're getting free floating image panels, I'd venture a guess that the Separated mode is probably the same animal, when spoken in MAC
SteveYes free floating image panels are the same. I was referring to all the other panels. They seem to remain connected in your shot. Doesn't happen that way on Mac.
-
1 hour ago, DianeF said:
In any case, do you think I'm correct in assuming that the Floating Windows are a new features for PCs, equivalent to the Separated Mode for Macs? That's what I'm trying to ascertain.
Yes.
With a slight difference I think.
It looks like all the tool, context and menu windows stay connected in the PC implementation. I like that (I'm on Mac), but that's just me. (Let the fighting begin
). It would be nice to just be able to pull down on a file tab to float. Now (Mac) we have to go to Separated Mode > hit Merge All Windows > and then pull down. Click click click click click. (yes we can set up hot keys..... I've got enough to remember)
Also, I'm not clear if @Cedge's screenshot is of a manually created 3-up, or one of several presets. The later would be very nice. I think everyone would agree on that
.
Go Pats..... and Cs!!
-
16 hours ago, chris.bannu said:
....Is there a way to reset the rotation handler to the top?
Thank you
Yes.
Draw a shape that's bigger than your object. Select both and Boolean Intersect.
The resulting object is now in the "upright" position.... until the next rotate
.
two caveats:
This bakes in any shape variables. i.e. #of star points, or radii etc.
The reset now uses the dimensions of the bounding box not the actual object. Fine, perhaps, for something rotated 90°.
But, for example, if you have a tall rectangle rotated 45°, the procedure will give you an object with square dimensions. But the handle will be up
.
-
8 minutes ago, firstdefence said:
freaky yes, it gets freaky, add a pixel layer back and it goes back to "Normal"
The little preview in the Navigation tab never wavers.
Render engine bug... me thinks.
Without deleting anything changing the zoom to below 100% all blends seem to be ignored.
.
.
.
How to create a Rorschach-type image?
in Pre-V2 Archive of Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
.... And what app(s) are you using?
AP has a Mirror filter. (destructive, but it's there).