Image Surgery

Hi folks, OP here. I thought this was simple but a lot of people are quite confused, and I'm seriously surprised at how many well meaning but quite intense responses there's been. A touch overwhelming, honestly. I'd suggest not looking at it visually, but instead to think about the logic behind the operation, and how it already works. It works perfectly if you consider that a colour is a property of an object and is maintained following a boolean operation. In this case, the name is also a property of an object, and that should be maintained. This would sound so much stranger a request if I was saying 'my blue square becomes a default black square after a boolean operation…' but instead just read it as 'an object' property is removed after a boolean operation', in which case simply copy the existing behaviour for _other_ properties which are maintained. The part about the name, I'd be inclined to keep it the same. There is no problem having multiple objects share a name, that's the job of the user to give good names to their work. And in the case of splitting an object, we maintain the colour and other object properties where possible (not green-ish, but identically green), so I would posit that the best, most general purpose naming would be no change at all. Not `Object-1` or `Object-1-2-1` which when split sooner or later turns into your phone number; just like the colour, leave that to the user to choose. (Also a shout out to the Affinity team for showing default names differently, it's nice to know that 'Rectangle' if it's grey, was not named by me. It's just super clear and nice, thank you!) As for my use case, it could be anything, and that's my point in requesting this feature. But if you. must know specifically, I was using Designer to split some lumber that I have. Each piece is unique, and I wanted to preview how much yield I could get from my stock. However I quickly noticed that with every division, I needed to re-name my pieces, which made the task unpleasant and harder. I was using names as the identifier, it could be said that a workaround is to apply the unique identifier to the colour instead of the name. However that's clearly not as good a solution so I request the change. I'd also love to encourage the rest of the discussion, but I'd put it under the 'feature enhancement' category, should it exist, rather than what seems more akin to 'bug report' (or in this case, possibly technically a feature enhancement however the enhancement itself is actually feature parity).

I have been using the divide operand in Designer and notice that all object names are discarded when using this operation. The other boolean operands keep a reasonable name intact, in my testing. Steps to reproduce: Create two overlapping shapes and give them non-default names Use the 'Divide' operand (`Layer > Geometry > Divide` or toolbar button) Note the resulting objects have no names, naming is lost Tested on Designer 2.1.0 on MacOS 13.4, MBA15" Model `Mac14,15` (edit 2023-06-29 11:30) Before dividing, objects have properties, such as colour, many of which are maintained after the divide. If the object's name is considered to be a property in the same way colour is, then apply it to the resulting objects in the same way. That's the whole request, parity with the rest of the tool(s). Other enhancements suggested below should be considered on their merits for sure but they're not my feature request (bug report?).

Patrick, thanks for your calm replies to this heated thread, and add to it another calm request from a long-time user who's just getting started in a new application of their design skills, and would really appreciate the addition of DXF export and the accompanying reduction of trips to other packages as midway hops in a never-ending sea of unitless formats and differing interpretations of fine detail my work now entails. --- For all of you slinging fierce barbs at people you don't know or slinging them right back at other people you also don't know, it's not a good look. You know little about other's situations, or how they may have come to the point they're at. As an example, I've paid for and used both versions of all three of these wonderful apps, typeset a full book for a friend as a starter project, used it as my 'home solution' for years because it was (and remains) affordable and excellent, and only recently picked up laser cutting and CNC routing. It's at this point that I now need DXF, so free trials or paid trials or demo versions or anything else wouldn't work for my particular situation, now would I have known about this in advance (because of a lack of concurrence of events called 'time' or 'life'). I'm here now, asking for a thing that does exist but doesn't exists here, and trying to do so in a respectful and kind manner. I've also found solutions to all the issues which are being presented, but none of them are easy or pretty, so I still think it's a valid ask. Plus, by asking, developers such as Patrick and others at Serif get better information about how people both use their products, and wish to use their products. Bottom line: I'm here now, and would like to request this feature please, for all the good reasons stated before, and it's not 100% critical but it is a real and major factor in my workflow. Honestly have no idea where the vitriol is coming from, other than 'the internet', 'these days', and 'people'. Did I miss 'feature request'? How does that even work? Sheesh. Lastly, for any of you working with equipment you own or manage directly, try Lightburn, and try using PDF as an intermediary. It's certainly not CAD, but as a workflow it is simple and maintains scale correctly. Results in my experience have been indistinguishable, however it obviously requires paid software and a small amount of testing, so it might not work in all situations. Hopefully it will help some, and if not, create a bit of interesting vitriol itself for daring to be… suggested. *wink, wink*

Contextual tooltips in the centre of the screen are cut off for longer descriptions (yellow outline on screenshot). In some cases, this results in identical tooltips for different tools (red outline on screenshot), and no (obvious) way to view what these tools do.

Designer 2 (Build 2.0.1.2) On iPad OS 16.1.1 (20B101), with Apple’s Magic Keyboard (US, Firmware 0241.0526.0200, Hardware 0009) attached: - Typing a decimal point (or period or full-stop, as you prefer) on the physical keyboard, into one of Designer’s numerical input ‘calculator’ widgets, the decimal is input as a 6-character string: (null) Example: if trying to type the value `4.88`, the result is: 4(null)88 - Other characters, such as / for division, * for multiplication, + and - do not function at all via the keyboard, but can be entered on-screen - the up/down ‘spinner’ does not operate with the up/down arrow keys, but functions via the on-screen widget - the delete key works correctly both with the physical keyboard and the on-screen widget. Additional: - Tested with both `US-English` and `British` (I generally use the British keyboard) selected for the hardware keyboard in settings, with a force-quit of Affinity between settings. No difference in behaviour was noted between the two. Cheers, Martin