Jilly

Put me down as one more that wants at least the option to make the reset permanent.

Put me down as one more that wants at least the option to make the reset permanent.

@Ben Thank you for the thought-out response. It gives us a better understanding of the implications.
 
So you’re saying that permanently resetting the bounding box of a dynamic shape will convert it to curves. That might indeed be a issue, but it also might not make a difference. That is also the outcome of @lenogre’s
suggestion. So for example we might ⌥+click the “Reset Bounding Box” option and what it does is convert the shape to curves, reset the bounding box, and show the Assistant informing “the shape was converted to curves”.

The second, better alternative, is to make “Reset Bounding Box” a button toggle. So we press it once and the button gets inset in the interface, and from then on it’ll always use the alternative box model until we click it again. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with this — it doesn’t really need to be permanent, it just needs to be done so we don’t have to keep toggling the option (current behaviour).

Put me down as one more that wants at least the option to make the reset permanent.

To be fair, that wasn’t Affinity’s team claim, it was a testimonial by a user.
 
It is completely false, though, as not only is there no innovation in the way it does bezier curves (nothing new that Illustrator and others haven’t done for years), it doesn’t even do them correctly many times.

Not only is it not implemented, it’s not even in the feature roadmap and this post hasn’t been officially acknowledged by the team.
 
I’d say there’s a good chance they’re not even going to see this. We need more people making noise for it.

This is not as straight forward as you think.
 
Each object has what we call a "base box".  This is essentially the box that defines the bounds of an object, and what is post-transformed to put the object into the correct position.
 
The geometry of some objects are defined by their base box - such a shapes and text.  The internal box is used as the container into which the geometry is created.  Curve objects can easily have their transforms "baked", but for these other dynamic objects, the base box provides a continuing reference for edibility.  So, for example, you can always reselect a shape object and fix it's rotation or shear - you don't lose the transform used to create your shape, or its editability as a shape (as opposed to converting to curves).
 
Another issue is that some shapes and text are adjusted to fit their box based on their absolute positioning and size.  Rounded corners on rectangles are sized based on their on-page base box size and shear.  But, most importantly, the transformed base box ALWAYS contains these rounded corners.
 
Now, if we provided an alternative user-defined box, based on the current transform of a dynamic shape, what happens if you apply a further transform to the shape?  The box you have may no longer contain the geometry as the transform affects the corner geometry which could now grow outside of the user-defined box.  Combining this with snapping, you now have a disconnect between the box edges and the geometry bounds that will be snapped.  I can almost guarantee that users will then complain that "snapping is not accurate" - when what is actually happening is that the geometry bounds and the user-defined selection box are not consistent.
 
If there is to be any more consideration of this issue, I think people will need to provide use cases to illustrate exactly where their problem is.  It might be that it just needs a different approach, but there might also be something we can do.  Bear in mind, however, that we have a wider understanding of the implications of the feature that you may think is trivial.
 

Put me down as one more that wants at least the option to make the reset permanent.

Same here. Not having vector pattern swatches is one of those things that prevents me from using Affinity Designer in a serious capacity.

Curvature Combs visualize the curvature of a Bezier curve in order to enable the designer to draw smoother curves.
 

 
See section 2.11 here: http://cagd.cs.byu.edu/~557/text/ch2.pdf
 
Often I find my self in position that I drew a curve but it just does not look smooth enough and I fiddle around until it looks smooth. Would be great to have some more clear feedback.

This post is a duplicate. Follow the original instead.
 

 
This post by Dennis Hotson succinctly outlines what a curvature comb is and how it’s useful to draw better looking bézier curves. It has animations and interactive examples.

I doubt it. With me, Illustrator never had a single hiccup with patterns, and I frequently pushed it to the max of its abilities.

Put me down as one more that wants at least the option to make the reset permanent.

Put me down as one more that wants at least the option to make the reset permanent.

While I whole heartily appreciate a current accessibility of the bounding box to easily be able to go back and edit the shape (fantastic feature), a permanent reset or an actual toggle mode is a huge request. Please and Thank you.

I understand how this can be useful in those cases you mentioned, but even if this behavior is kept, it would be great to have a way to permanently reset the bounding box without having to do work-arounds with add/subtract shape or converting to curves. I would prefer to not have the extra step of resetting the bounding box evey time I need to change the object; I find it very disruptive to a visual composition workflow.

I don’t think anyone on this thread actually cares if Figma was first or is unique. In fact, it has been shown Sketchup already does this.

What we all seem to agree on is that their method does indeed make more sense than the current pen tool and we’d like to see it in Affinity Designer. By stating so many other tools have some of these options and Affinity Designer doesn’t, it makes it look even worse!

Agreed. As much as you might consider Shape Builder a basic tool, there’s something even more basic than it: the boolean operations that power it. Without getting those right first, working on a Shape Builder tool would be a waste of time and resources.

Agreed. As much as you might consider Shape Builder a basic tool, there’s something even more basic than it: the boolean operations that power it. Without getting those right first, working on a Shape Builder tool would be a waste of time and resources.

I don't see the point in having a Shape Builder Tool before the Geometry commands upon which it would be based (Add, Subtract and Intersect) are working reliably in all scenarios.

This feature is already implemented in the latest stable of Designer, but not yet in the latest beta of Photo.

None of the apps currently does it, but Adobe’s apps do, and even OS X’s native screenshots tool (which is what I use in the example).

To put it simply, dragging a shape (like an ellipse in Designer or a marquee in Photo) should draw it (just as it does now), but when pressing ␣ (space bar) dragging should switch to moving the shape around (only while the space bar is pressed).

I'm glad to hear it.  :)
 
 
Yeah I hope it works out.
 
 
Not just bug fixes, but features as well. Line continuation for the Pencil Tool was also said to come to 1.6. When I asked why it wasn't on the roadmap, that is when the staff member told me about bonus features being included. There was another feature, but I forget.
 
I think this discussion is buried somewhere in the roadmap topic, but there are now over 40 pages, so ain't looking. Haha.

Problem with joining points.
 
As for the pathfinder, it’s the same issue with expanding strokes: it makes way too many points. It’s impossible to trust its results. I always need to check back and manually fix its mistakes. And if I miss one, that may mean redoing hours of work (I rely on pathfinder for extremely complex shapes). Affinity Designer is marketed as being extremely precise, but most times I do an operation that requires precision, it fumbles. It’s hands down the most imprecise vector tool I’ve ever used regularly.
 
The teams is aware of these two problems, yet solving them is not on the roadmap. I’d say the basics should be fixed before even thinking about adding more features.

They’re not very good at showing it (not referring to just this issue). A forum is one of the worst ways to handle bug reports and feature requests. I also remember reading from a member of the team (on twitter? a good while ago) that it was low priority and they weren’t even sure if they were going to build it.
 
I don’t mean to doubt you, but without official confirmation, it means little.
 

I’m not trying to be confrontational, but I’ll believe it when I see it. AD can’t even expand strokes correctly. It also can’t do incredibly basic things like pressing the space bar to temporarily move objects or be consistent with tabbing to move through fields, or have a decent pathfinder, or join points from different shapes. It also has substandard artboards which are little more than layers with a different name.
 
To someone who has never used their other apps (pre-Affinity) the “Serif treatment” is far from impressive. In fact, it is so frequently bad that I’d rather they didn’t give it the Serif treatment at all and just copied what works.
 

As does everything. But that is far from reassuring. The promise of a feature (and not even that, since again, there’s no official acknowledgement) does not mean it will be built. Especially when there’s no ETA and it’s something to do eventually. For all we know, it’ll be years before it is implemented.