Jump to content

Martin S Taylor

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Martin S Taylor

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks, done. Also, there's an advantage in having a pop-up menu if you right-click the title of the document: you can see where the document is stored in the Finder without actually having to open a Finder window and leave Affinity. Only a small advantage, but it's there. MST
  2. What's the protocol here for saying "I agree"? Do I say "Me too"? Or "+1"? Or post a graphic of a thumbs up? Whatever, I strongly agree with WestSlopeGuide. Please allow right-clicking on the title of the document to reveal the current file in the Finder. Consistency across all Mac apps is (well, used to be) one of the biggest advantages of using Macs, and we really should do all we can to maintain it. Martin S Taylor
  3. Thanks, haakoo. We knew all this. The problem is that moving the line segment repositions the handles at both ends of the line segment, and that's not what we want. anon2 has shown how to do it.
  4. Yes, I'm sorry, you're right, of course. I forgot to hold down the option key. I find it a bit weird that the pen tool works in such a totally different way if a node is selected. I still think it would be more intuitive to have this function devolved to the Node Tool (isn't this exactly the kind of task that the Node Tool is for?), but you've at least shown me how it's possible to do what I need to do. And between us, I think we've corrected a lot of misapprehensions on the part of others in this thread. Cheers, Martin
  5. Yes, and thank you anon2. That, at least, is a way to do it. But you first have to use the Node Tool (to select the node), then go the Pen Tool, then possibly reverse the direction of the curve (is there an easy way to see which way round the curve goes?) then opt-drag out the selected node, then (very likely) go back to the Node Tool to make some fine adjustments. The other awkwardness is that if the node currently has no handles, you have to add two handles and then delete one of them, which seems a bit ridiculous. I'd simply like a way of using the Node Tool to add one handle, and since opt-drag doesn't currently do anything different from ordinary dragging, it's available for this purpose.
  6. Let's give this one more shot, shall we? Have a look at this diagram: I want a second handle which extends from point A, so that the line C will bulge upwards some more. I don't want to move point A, point B, or any of the handles you can see in the diagram at the moment. (Please don't anybody tell me that's not what I want. I do want it. That should be enough.) If I click on A with either the Node Tool or the Pen Tool, with or without modifier keys held down, I either smooth A (which I don't want) or move A or its existing handle. If I drag the line at point C (which, I think, is what Alfred is suggesting) it will disturb the handles at B. Again, I don't want this. All I'm asking for is that I can use the Node Tool together with an unused modifier key (eg. option-drag) in order to 'pull out' a second extended handle from point A. Point A will then be a sharp node with two handles: the existing handle (which will not be moved by my proposal) and a new handle which will affect the shape of curve C but will not affect the handles at B. I hope this is all clear – people seem to be making such heavy weather of it.
  7. We're almost there, aren't we? The problem with your solution is that it disturbs the handle(s) at the other end of the curve-segment. Again, I don't want to do this.
  8. Exactly. I'd like one, please. Hokusai seems to agree with me. I don't understand what you mean. I want a new handle which I can move, so that I can alter the appearance of the curve on one side of the node. I don't want to alter the appearance of the curve on the other side of the node, so I want the original, visible, handle to stay where it is.
  9. I can draw a shape so that a node has one handle which I can manipulate. Just take a regular, smooth, two-handled node and use the Node Tool to option-click on one of its handles. That handle disappears and the other does not. This is the situation I illustrated in the picture that I posted about an hour ago. The node at the bottom right is selected, using the node tool, and there is one handle visible and manipulable. I cannot see a second handle or make a second handle visible. I have always considered that this is a node with one handle, which seems a reasonable way of looking at it. However, Alfred says I don't care how it's implemented. I don't care if the handle has been deleted, or if I've "set the node-to-handle distance to zero". I'd just like some way of getting hold of a second handle without disturbing the position of the visible handle or the node itself. Martin
  10. The distinction between a) deleting a handle and b) reducing its length to zero without deleting it is a bit subtle for me. If I change a node from a regular smooth node to a sharp point, would you say that the node now has no handles or that it still has two handles but you've reduced the node-to-handle distance to zero? How can you tell? Is there any meaningful difference? Martin
  11. Make a regular, two-handled node, then option-click on one of the handles. See the picture. Martin
  12. Thanks Hokusai. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. If a node has no handles, it's hard to add one handle to it. You can, of course, add two handles, and then remove one of them by opt-click. What's a real pain, though, is if a node has one handle and you wish to add a second without disturbing the first – or moving the node itself. That's something I occasionally want to do, and can't do using the node tool, nor, I think, in any other way. It would be easy to arrange it so that opt-drag using the node tool 'dragged out' a second handle from the node. Martin
  13. Not if English isn't your first language. MST ('Proportional' is an excellent example, since many non-native English speakers confuse 'proportional' and 'proportionate'.)
  14. In the Transform pane, there's a graphic which shows whether the aspect ratio of the selection will be maintained. It's a linked chain, (to show the ratio is not maintained); it acquires two tags at the ends to show when it is maintained. To me, this doesn't work: a linked chain says that the width and height are linked; I would expect to see a broken chain, to show they're not linked and the aspect ratio is not maintained. The export dialog box gets closer: a locked padlock shows the ratio between height and width are linked, an open padlock shows they're not linked. But why a padlock? To me, that suggests they're locked to a fixed value and can't be altered at all. I think it would be clearer (and more consistent) if in both Transform Pane and Export dialog a graphic of a linked chain (with tags at the end, if you wish) showed that the aspect ratio is maintained, and a broken chain showed it was not.
  15. If a node has no handles it's awkward and not intuitive to add a handle to it. As far I can make out, I have to select the node using the Node Tool, then switch to the Pen Tool to drag out a new handle. Worse, if I want just one handle on the 'wrong' side of the node, I have to add two handles using the pen tool, then switch back to the Node Tool to delete the one I don't need. Could you not arrange it so that option-dragging (or ctrl-dragging) from a node when using the Node Tool adds a new handle? (It would be nice if the pointer changed in some way to show this new behaviour, too.)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.