Gear maker

Feature request to enable nodes to be equally distributed along a path, using the align space tool.

Clicking elsewhere to finish editing without creating a new text field would be a good addition.
 
But Cmd+Return is definitely system wide to finish something. (Even sending a text instead of a new line in messaging apps) This is not just an Adobe thing. Look at Keynote. Edit a text field and hit Cmd+Return. Editing is finished.
 
It's even kookier because Cmd+Return does finish editing. It just also converts to curves which you don't notice until you come back and try and edit that text.
 
The ability to convert to curves seems like a useful feature. But so infrequently used. Why not Cmd+Return to finish editing and Cmd+Shift+Return for finish editing and convert to curves?
 
I routinely need to make adjustments to kerning and other paragraph settings immediately after typing out the text. Given the lack of a clear way to finish editing, it's very cumbersome to do that with the text tool currently. Esc is not always clear that I've jumped out of edit mode. Especially if I hit Cmd+A to select all and make changes to character or paragraph.
 
The principal of least surprise would be nice here.

Yes I only use separated mode, and I have no use for tabs in a photo editor or design app, or full screen apps either. ;)

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).

Nope, but that does sound familiar.
 
Wait....searches on Bing...found it! GREAT SCOTT!
 
Yup, just read it on the Telegraph's website (A posh English newspaper).
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/deloreans-to-come-back-to-the-future-and-be-built-again/
 
Hope this gets the chance to see tarmac/asphalt, rather than tarpaulin. See how they ducked under the 325 unit limit, to get an exemption, from the modern safety rules. B)
 
Flux capacitors at the ready.

Thought you might like to see what I have been working on for the last month or so.  It's a 1925 Renault 40CV Tourer.  I actually don't care for the nose view of this car so I kept this view from the side, which I think has an elegant style.  
 
Only 1162 vector layers on this one. ;)  I've attached a couple areas that have been zoomed in on.
 

 

 

 
I'm trying to decide if I'm going to do a 1934 Rolls-Royce Phantom II Kellner Cabriolet next or a 1924 Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A.  I love the style of both of these.

Thought you might like to see what I have been working on for the last month or so.  It's a 1925 Renault 40CV Tourer.  I actually don't care for the nose view of this car so I kept this view from the side, which I think has an elegant style.  
 
Only 1162 vector layers on this one. ;)  I've attached a couple areas that have been zoomed in on.
 

 

 

 
I'm trying to decide if I'm going to do a 1934 Rolls-Royce Phantom II Kellner Cabriolet next or a 1924 Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A.  I love the style of both of these.

Thought you might like to see what I have been working on for the last month or so.  It's a 1925 Renault 40CV Tourer.  I actually don't care for the nose view of this car so I kept this view from the side, which I think has an elegant style.  
 
Only 1162 vector layers on this one. ;)  I've attached a couple areas that have been zoomed in on.
 

 

 

 
I'm trying to decide if I'm going to do a 1934 Rolls-Royce Phantom II Kellner Cabriolet next or a 1924 Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A.  I love the style of both of these.

Thought you might like to see what I have been working on for the last month or so.  It's a 1925 Renault 40CV Tourer.  I actually don't care for the nose view of this car so I kept this view from the side, which I think has an elegant style.  
 
Only 1162 vector layers on this one. ;)  I've attached a couple areas that have been zoomed in on.
 

 

 

 
I'm trying to decide if I'm going to do a 1934 Rolls-Royce Phantom II Kellner Cabriolet next or a 1924 Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A.  I love the style of both of these.

Thought you might like to see what I have been working on for the last month or so.  It's a 1925 Renault 40CV Tourer.  I actually don't care for the nose view of this car so I kept this view from the side, which I think has an elegant style.  
 
Only 1162 vector layers on this one. ;)  I've attached a couple areas that have been zoomed in on.
 

 

 

 
I'm trying to decide if I'm going to do a 1934 Rolls-Royce Phantom II Kellner Cabriolet next or a 1924 Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A.  I love the style of both of these.

Thought you might like to see what I have been working on for the last month or so.  It's a 1925 Renault 40CV Tourer.  I actually don't care for the nose view of this car so I kept this view from the side, which I think has an elegant style.  
 
Only 1162 vector layers on this one. ;)  I've attached a couple areas that have been zoomed in on.
 

 

 

 
I'm trying to decide if I'm going to do a 1934 Rolls-Royce Phantom II Kellner Cabriolet next or a 1924 Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A.  I love the style of both of these.

Thought you might like to see what I have been working on for the last month or so.  It's a 1925 Renault 40CV Tourer.  I actually don't care for the nose view of this car so I kept this view from the side, which I think has an elegant style.  
 
Only 1162 vector layers on this one. ;)  I've attached a couple areas that have been zoomed in on.
 

 

 

 
I'm trying to decide if I'm going to do a 1934 Rolls-Royce Phantom II Kellner Cabriolet next or a 1924 Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A.  I love the style of both of these.

I think I’m finally done with my latest drawing, The Streetcar Boat.  In 1905 there were streetcars that went from Minneapolis to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, but the people living around Lake Minnetonka needed a way to continue to their homes.  So a set of 6 steam boats were built to resemble streetcars.  These boats added 27 more stops to the streetcar line.
 
In 1926 the 6 boats were deemed no longer necessary and were scuttled in the middle of the lake.  In 1979 a diver found the wreck of the Minnehaha and it was raised.  After 17 years of restoration it was put back in service on weekends in the summer making runs between two cities across the lake.
 
Being 1600 miles away and the wrong time of the year, I used pictures I had and pictures on the web to construct as much detail as possible.  Right down to screws and rivets.
 
At 4,638 layers, all vectors, it’s my largest drawing so far.  Zooming from the full image to some of the smaller detail requires a zoom of about 80,000%.  So AD is about the only program capable of the detail.
 

WOW, yesterday I had to go back to PS6 to update a project.  I couldn't believe how difficult it was to take care of several of the tasks.  15 months ago when I started with AD the main question I seemed to ask was "Why in the world did the Affinity devs do it this way?"  Now going back to PS I find that the way that AD did it makes more sense and usually is easier.
 
When I started I was looking for a substitute for AI but with no monthly bill.  I had expected AD to be a knockoff of AI.  I admit I was somewhat disappointed when it wasn't.  But I found that most of the actions made enough sense that though they were different they were mostly pretty easy to pick up.  Now going back to Adobe, only when I absolutely have too, I find in most cases the Affinity process (muscle memory aside) really is more natural, logical, intuitive, etc.
 
I know in the past half year I find myself rarely questioning why does AD does it this way, so I should not have been surprised.  But Adobe's methodology was even so much more cumbersome than I remembered.
 
I know there are other people on the forum that disagree with this, but I suspect there are not many that have given Affinity a fair try for more than a few months that aren't appreciating the difference between Affinity and Adobe.
 
Thank you Affinity team for all the planning and work you have done.  Job well done.  Now if we could get some lingering bugs taken care of, like Expand Stroke...  <_<
 
Mike

Hi everybody,
no offense, but I feel there’s a little confusion about concepts and terminologies here … basically you have to discern between pixel layers, object layers, image layers, adjustment layers, and mask layers.
Pixel layers. A pixel layer is basically a container where you can perform pixel based editing tasks like painting, erasing, selecting by a pixel selection marquee, and so on. Object layers. Then there are object layers, falling in different categories: smart shapes (rectangles, cogs, arrows, …), vector paths, text objects. Object layers become pixel layers, when they get rasterised (Layer > Rasterise …). Image layers. Suppose you created an empty document. Now place another file in that document (File > Place …). Then you will see an image (layer) appear in the layers list. An image (layer) is considered an object layer, just like a vector path, a vector shape or a text block. It retains most of its properties until it gets rasterised. I say “most of”, because the colour profile that may be embedded in the placed file gets converted to the colour workspace of the document, for example. Adjustment layers. These layers are used to perform non-destructive adjustment tasks (Brightness and Contrast, Curves, Black and White, …), and the range of their efficiacy depends on their position in the layers hierarchy. Basically, an adjustment layer that is nested to another layer (to a pixel layer, for instance) affects just the layer it is nested to. (The same applies to groups.) Otherwise it affects all layers beneath. Nesting an adjustment layer A to a layer B is performed by dragging A onto B in the layers list. Mask layers. A mask layer that is nested to another layer determines which parts of this other layer will be visible or invisible or semi-opaque. Otherwise it will determine the visibility (opacity) of all layers beneath. Masks are indeed unlike darken or lighten layers (i.e. layers which blend modes are set to “Darken” or “Lighten”). Paint on a layer set to “Darken” with a black brush, and you will usually see a black stroke appear. Paint on a mask with a black brush, and you will hide parts of the layer(s) affected by the mask. Excuse me, if I am not clear enough … I hope that makes sense … and please note, that the in-app help files (Help > Affinity Photo Help) are very valuable, when it comes to getting clear about questions like these. I just can recommend to have a look.
Cheers, Alex 

Hi studio martin,
Welcome to Affinity Forums :)
Instead of a line use the side of a rectangle rotated around the center of the star (using Power Duplicate) to divide it in pieces.
Then select all rectangles and the star and press Divide from the main toolbar (menu Layer ▸ Geometry ▸ Divide).
Finally drag a marquee selection to pick just the star pieces from the center of the rotated rectangles.
 
This will generate a star without gaps on the divisions (other than the antialiasing picking the background color on the boundaries).
See screenshot for reference.
 

There may be an easier way to do it but using the Geometry operations (Layer menu > Geometry or with the toolbar icons) will do what you want ... maybe.
 
The basic idea is to add the lines together into one shape & subtract that from the star. The problem is add doesn't work on lines, just on shapes. So what you can do is use Layer > Expand Stroke to convert the lines into shapes, then add them together. Make sure the resulting single shape is on the layer above the star, select both shapes & use subtract to split the star.
 
The "maybe" part comes into it because expanding the lines into shapes gives them thickness, so that thickness is subtracted from the star, leaving gaps between the pieces. That may be what you want, but if not you can minimize but not completely eliminate the gaps by setting the stroke of the lines to a very small value before you expand them (like 0.1 pixel).

I think I’m finally done with my latest drawing, The Streetcar Boat.  In 1905 there were streetcars that went from Minneapolis to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, but the people living around Lake Minnetonka needed a way to continue to their homes.  So a set of 6 steam boats were built to resemble streetcars.  These boats added 27 more stops to the streetcar line.
 
In 1926 the 6 boats were deemed no longer necessary and were scuttled in the middle of the lake.  In 1979 a diver found the wreck of the Minnehaha and it was raised.  After 17 years of restoration it was put back in service on weekends in the summer making runs between two cities across the lake.
 
Being 1600 miles away and the wrong time of the year, I used pictures I had and pictures on the web to construct as much detail as possible.  Right down to screws and rivets.
 
At 4,638 layers, all vectors, it’s my largest drawing so far.  Zooming from the full image to some of the smaller detail requires a zoom of about 80,000%.  So AD is about the only program capable of the detail.
 

I think I’m finally done with my latest drawing, The Streetcar Boat.  In 1905 there were streetcars that went from Minneapolis to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, but the people living around Lake Minnetonka needed a way to continue to their homes.  So a set of 6 steam boats were built to resemble streetcars.  These boats added 27 more stops to the streetcar line.
 
In 1926 the 6 boats were deemed no longer necessary and were scuttled in the middle of the lake.  In 1979 a diver found the wreck of the Minnehaha and it was raised.  After 17 years of restoration it was put back in service on weekends in the summer making runs between two cities across the lake.
 
Being 1600 miles away and the wrong time of the year, I used pictures I had and pictures on the web to construct as much detail as possible.  Right down to screws and rivets.
 
At 4,638 layers, all vectors, it’s my largest drawing so far.  Zooming from the full image to some of the smaller detail requires a zoom of about 80,000%.  So AD is about the only program capable of the detail.
 

R C-R FYI this sounds related to an issue I had turned in on: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/14154-ad-gradient-on-adjustment-layer-is-not-editable/ I got pretty much the same answer.  Hard to believe that AD would have something that couldn't ever be edited.  I figured this had to be a bug.

I'm not even sure that the beta forum is the right place to discuss this but I am very pleased that Affinity doesn't slavishly follow Adobe's UI conventions.
 
In some ways, Adobe is stuck in the past, encumbered by user expectations of how things "should" work, even when there are faster, more intuitive ways of interacting with Ui elements that the latest OS's can easily support without the need to tack on tons of inefficient resource-eating code.
 
Sure, this can make the learning curve steeper than one might like but I think it is well worth the effort in the long run.

WOW, yesterday I had to go back to PS6 to update a project.  I couldn't believe how difficult it was to take care of several of the tasks.  15 months ago when I started with AD the main question I seemed to ask was "Why in the world did the Affinity devs do it this way?"  Now going back to PS I find that the way that AD did it makes more sense and usually is easier.
 
When I started I was looking for a substitute for AI but with no monthly bill.  I had expected AD to be a knockoff of AI.  I admit I was somewhat disappointed when it wasn't.  But I found that most of the actions made enough sense that though they were different they were mostly pretty easy to pick up.  Now going back to Adobe, only when I absolutely have too, I find in most cases the Affinity process (muscle memory aside) really is more natural, logical, intuitive, etc.
 
I know in the past half year I find myself rarely questioning why does AD does it this way, so I should not have been surprised.  But Adobe's methodology was even so much more cumbersome than I remembered.
 
I know there are other people on the forum that disagree with this, but I suspect there are not many that have given Affinity a fair try for more than a few months that aren't appreciating the difference between Affinity and Adobe.
 
Thank you Affinity team for all the planning and work you have done.  Job well done.  Now if we could get some lingering bugs taken care of, like Expand Stroke...  <_<
 
Mike

predick, I'm not really sure how to tell that.  According to the activity monitor AD increases in size by about 36MB when this is loaded.  So not too bad.  Luckily it's vector, let's see 4600 layers at 35.5" x 12.5" x 300 dpi would be really a boat load of ram if done in pixels. :D

Thanks for the quick replies! So to keep everybody happy & for maximum clarity I guess I could refer to it as the Status bar & to what it displays as Tool Tips.  :)

@Gear maker, GREAT Work, I agree to Madame, absolutely. One of the best works in this forum! Wish I could do something like that, but I can't. ;)  R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and all the best for other projects :)