awakenedbyowls
-
Posts
704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by awakenedbyowls
-
-
2 hours ago, lepr said:
That's what led me to assume the OP was talking about nesting a Pixel object inside a vector object such as a Rectangle or a Curve. I don't understand their stubborn refusal to provide an example document or screenshot of the app. Maybe they will now.
I'm not refusing it's just every single time I ask a question the first reply is always asking for a screenshot or video - when often this is not required - adding these takes time which I don't always have
So it works if I add a Vector Layer but if I draw a Vector Object the layer it forms isn't a Vector Layer ? What kind of layer is it then - it's either Vector or Pixel
If Vector Objects are just Objects then why are they also represented as Layers and function as layers ? It just seems logical to me that if I can apply effects to this layer and add sub layers then the effects would work on the sub layers !
-
10 hours ago, lepr said:
First, notice that the same absence of transparency occurs with clip-nested vector children and clip-nested Pixel children, and so there is nothing special about the child being a Pixel in your scenario. You probably realise that, but some readers may become sidetracked by general differences between raster and vector objects.
I share your expectation of the transparency affecting parent and children as a whole.
When there is no clip-nested child, the whole object is given transparency, as expected.
However, the attached image shows that when there is one or more clip-nested child, the parent object's fill is given transparency and, separately, the parent object's stroke is given transparency, and clip-nested children are unaffected.
This may be a bug, or maybe a deliberate (peculiar) design decision for the software, but I suspect Serif would describe it as "by design" which can be translated as "an unforeseen consequence of the design".
I just had a look at a basic example and no it appears adding Pixel Layers to Vector Layers with Transparency Gradients does not apply the Transparency Gradient to the Pixel Layer - doesn't seem right to me ?
If I want to add a Pixel Layer to a Vector Boundary without applying the Transparency Gradient to it that might be applied to this layer then logically I would just think to create a new blank Vector Layer and add it to that ?
I need to learn the different between Clipping and Masking too - I never use Masking because I just find it confusing - maybe I will find myself having to use it at some point to create more advanced effects though
Sorry I don't quite understand what this diagram is showing but I'm completely exhausted after walking 70 miles in 7 days and trying to finish off a design - I'll come back and have a look later
-
23 minutes ago, StuartRc said:
really!
Transparency is a vector tool function NOT a raster tool. Therefore you cannot apply it to px. It is not a bug.
What is the difference between making the pixel layer into a one child parent group or adding it to a vector layer ?
I THOUGHT making the pixel layer into a subset of another layer was EQUIVALENT TO adding a vector layer component over it - and it seems to apply transparency gradients there so why the hell doesn't it when I add a pixel layer to a vector layer with a transparency gradient already applied ?
I would have thought that by doing so I would be applying whatever effects are applied to that layer to the pixel layer I am adding as a child layer !
Sorry but I just find basic logic helps sometimes - otherwise what exactly are hierarchies for ?
-
-
3 minutes ago, StuartRc said:
Apply group to pixel object and then transparency
I know
This is not the issue
-
12 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
That's better, but (for example) I think there are two ways the pixel layer could be a child of the vector layer: clipping, or masking. We can't be sure which you have done.
And it would be much easier to look at, and see what's happening, and be sure we understood, and experiment, if we had a sample. Or at least screenshots.
So yes, we prefer having screenshots and samples because it makes everything simpler and helps ensure correct answers.
We also like having the description in words of what you think you've done, as that can be important and helpful, too.
No there's no masking involved - just a standard hierarchy of layering without anything else added
If there was masking involved I would have mentioned it
-
Vector layer with transparency gradient
Add previously made Pixel Layer to Vector Layer so it is now the Parent Layer
Transparency gradient has no effect on child/pixel layer
Is that what it's meant to do or an oversight in the design of the platform or what?
Does any one understand what I mean or will I just post all my questions as pictorial representations
-
5 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
Probably not, as the file will help us understand what it is you're doing or trying to do.
I explained what I am doing - in I think plain English that made sense ?
I know it helps sometimes but really - does every question I ask on here have to require a screenshot or video ?
-
Sure - but is it because the software is supposed to do this and needs fixed or because something wrong my end
Can we look into that first before I provide an example file ?
-
I want to add some effects to about a dozen different layers I have a transparency gradient applied to - but the transparency gradient doesn't have effect on the pixel layer - sorry but what use is that ?
Now I have to reapply the transparency gradients on a dozen layers all over the place
🤦♂️
-
-
11 minutes ago, joe_l said:
Loreley, Germany at the Bizarre Festival. Not to sure if it was 87 right now. I have to look at the ticket at home, I am getting old resp. I am old. 🤦♂️
1989?
1987 was very early for them I'm not sure they would have cracked the international scene by then as their first EP Come On Pilgrim didn't come out until September 1987
Pixies Concert Setlist at Bizarre Special on May 13, 1989 | setlist.fm
-
Just now, joe_l said:
I saw them on a festival in 87. Well, not too much seeing after a few liters of Vodka-Lemon. Their concert was pretty cool (the other 4 or 5 times also). Thx for your poster, inspiration for seeing them again after so many years. 🙏
Lucky you ! Where was that ?
I'm just reworking this design minus the poster into a square format with better UFOs
-
4 hours ago, walt.farrell said:
It does for me, if I press Option on the iPad or use the Command Controller, then click on the Chevron of that parent Layer. I did it before posting that screenshot earlier.
Of course, you wouldn't want to click it again with Option pressed, or it would expand everything
I can't provide a screen recording until this evening at the earliest, but probably tomorrow.
So whether or not I hold a certain key down or not dictates whether or not it collapses everything down or just hides everything so it's all there when I reopen it?
I don't know - is there not option to just collapse everything down on the iPad ? and if not why not !
Why are they always differences in functionality between the iPad and Windows? I get the interface has to be different but they should all feature the same basic features
-
9 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
But that's not what the function provided in 2.1, which this topic is about, and where you've posted your question, does.
You can do it, if you create a Layer at the top of the Stack and nest everything in it. Then an Option-click on that Layer's Chevron will childhood or expensive everything that's in it.
Other than that, the iPad may not have the function you're looking for
Sorry but how I'm reading this thread - this is exactly what this thread is about
From the first post:
QuoteIn all apps you can use the Option (macOS and iPad) or Alt (Windows) modifier on the expand chevron in the layers panel. If you hold the modifier that will now expand all groups, layers and other nested items within the parent, and going the other way will collapse them all
Creating a new Parent Layer and collapsing it does not collapse all the open layers within it - so when I reopen it they also fly open and if I end up with a massive list of open layers and get lost then "Collapse All Parent Layers" is a useful function
If it's not a feature of the iPad then why not ? This a basic feature !
-
9 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
Thanks, but I can't tell where you're clicking. There's an option in the application Settings to Show Touches. Perhaps that would let us see.
However: I'm not sure what you expect to happen. You'll see that in my screenshot above I have a multi-level nesting hierarchy. You seem to have only a multiple groups, but they are not nested. The function is not a Collapse or Expand Everything. It applies to everything within a single parent Group or Layer. So for your design, the new function simply may not provide anything different than what you had.
I'm clicking the chevron - where else would I be clicking to make the child layers appear and disappear ?
The issue in question is how to collapse ALL the layers - ALL the parent layers - like when you right click on the layers menu in Windows - if it was just how to collapse one parent layer then there would hardly be an issue would there ?
-
-
2 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
I don't know.
But if it also doesn't work with the Command Controller, then it's something else. Again, please confirm which application and release of the application you're using. And a recording of it not working would help. Or, at least, a screenshot showing your Layers studio and highlighting where you clicked.
Designer 2 - whatever the latest version is on an iPad Air 5th gen
-
7 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
It could work with the Command Controller but not with the keyboard if your keyboard is not sending the right key code.
Why wouldn't my keyboard send the right key code? These keys work like they should for other functions
-
12 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
Does it work if you use the Command Controller?
Negative
Why would it work there but not just by pressing the key on my keyboard ?
-
15 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
The instruction was to press/hold Option, not Alt nor Cmd. You can also do that with the Command Controller:
What is Option ?
That's the symbol for Alt on my keyboard
-
I'm holding the alt key - cmd - cmd+alt while tapping this and all it's doing it closing that layer
-
On 2/8/2023 at 10:57 AM, Ash said:
Apps: All
Platforms: Windows, macOS and iPadIn all apps you can use the Option (macOS and iPad) or Alt (Windows) modifier on the expand chevron in the layers panel. If you hold the modifier that will now expand all groups, layers and other nested items within the parent, and going the other way will collapse them all. This provides a more convenient / accessible way to achieve the "Expand Selection" and "Collapse Selection" options which are available in the right click layers menu on desktop. For iPad this is the first time this function has been available at all (requires using the ⌥ modifier with command controller, or ⌥ key on a connected keyboard.
Where do I find the option to Collapse All Parents on the iPad ?
-
I don't know about this new dual RAM rig - it's an HP Omen Gaming PC and I think bad for compatibility issues - some under the hood tinkering may be required
All I can say is I didn't see any improvement in Gaming if anything slightly worse maybe ? and some other minor browsing issues
Windows keeps wanting me to upgrade to 11 and I'm thinking - why are there two Windows anyway - why don't they just upgrade Windows 10 into whatever they want 11 to be ?
11 is the number of the Devil's Horns
Buy a computer - wait 3 years - then slowly everything starts to go slower - it's a swindle
Adding Pixel Layers to Vector Layer With Transparency Gradient Not Applying to Pixel Layer
in Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
When people ask me for videos and screenshots it's often from something I'm working on that I don't wish to put out on the internet yet - until it's finished - so it takes me time to sort something out when often I'm in the middle of something and it's late and I'm tired or whatever - I figured that just explaining in words would have been sufficient in this instance !
I just thought that someone on here who knows the ins and outs of the software might have figured that I was actually adding the pixel layer to an object and not an actual official vector layer and maybe asked that initially ? or maybe if the software was designed in such a way that makes sense then I suppose then nobody would have wasted any time here
If I create a simple vector OBJECT or layer as I like to call them since that's also what they are and apply a BASIC transparency to it and then add a pixel layer to it - it applies the transparency also to the Pixel Layer - If I apply a Gaussian Blur to the Vector Object and add the Pixel Layer it also affects the Pixel Layer - Transparency Gradient though - Nope ! That effect does not apply down through the hierarchy
So apparently Vector Objects work like Vector Layers apart from when Transparency Gradients applied - I think this is a Design Oversight