shushustorm

Thanks for the suggestion! May work in some cases! Most of the time, though, I am just selecting objects directly without looking them up from the layers menu. So I'd have to enable and disable the menu and dig there for the shape I'm looking for. However, in some cases, if I need to duplicate a lot, it sure makes sense!

Hey @stokerg Thanks for the reply! You're absolutely right! So that's solved already! Disabling this will stop the rotation even when invoked as a gesture!

Thanks for the replies! I wasn't aware of a gesture for duplicating. If that's indeed "Duplicate and Transform", however, that only works in quite specific cases, when I want to arrange something with equal distances. cmd + J on a Mac will trigger the same behaviour. Besides, I don't use a keyboard on my iPad. So unfortunately, I guess there currently isn't a simple workaround.

Hey everyone! I typically have dozens of images (each consisting of a layer group which includes the shapes) within the same file and I need to export them individually. For that, I can use the Export Persona and create a slice for each layer group and export the slices. However, most groups are shapes on a transparent background, so their bounding box doesn't use the full resolution of the file. This leads to "Create Slice" creating a much too small slice. I'd like to be able to optionally specify that each time I create a slice, it's at full resolution. The current limitation gets exhausting. I tried packing each of the groups with a background shape that spans the canvas size, but when I disable it after creating the slice, the bounds of the slice get adjusted automatically, resulting in using only the shape's bounding box once again. Best wishes, Shu

Hey everyone! I'd assume this is a bug. I accidentally rotated the canvas a lot by triggering the rotate gesture (via the Macbook touch pad). I figured there is an option within the settings that lets me disable this. However, unfortunately, I am still triggering this a lot by cmd + scroll up gesture, cmd + scroll down gesture. I think this should be disabled as well. I don't want to rotate the canvas at all. Ever. I am using macOS 10.13.6 and Designer 1.10.4 Best wishes, Shu

You showed that you were able to reach the suggested behaviour for a very narrow use case with an interesting, yet incredibly inefficient workaround. You did not show that the suggested feature, which includes being able to sync any data, not just plain colors or gradients without hue shift, is possible already. I want to be able to sync all data available on a variant level, in a simple, straight forward way. You did something like this: - Create global color - Create rect - Make rect child of the apple - Assign color to rect - Add another rect - Make that one a child of the apple - Add gradient to second rect - Set blend mode for first rect Whereas I simply want to - Adjust gradient of the apple That's about 8 steps instead of 1. Instead of turning off syncing completely, read my original post how I suggest variants to be implemented: " (* this should automatically add a new symbol, which is linked to the original one synching - all the data that hasn't been edited while variant syncing to all instances, including original as well as all variants - only the specific variant's data that has been edited while variant syncing to all instances of that variant). "

Just an update for anyone looking for a vector solution on iPhone: Vectornator has much improved over the last years. It hasn't been an option for me previously, but now, I use it regularly on my iPhone. It's great! Now I am even using my iPad rarely, since I am faster on iPhone than on iPad. The only feature Vectornator is missing for my workflow would be Designer's Symbols.

Yes it is. How is that possible already? I want to sync some data to all instances of both the root symbol as well as each of its variants and some things should only be adjusted on a variant level, with the root data still being mirrored to all instances.

Just a few things: 1. You're still trying to "prove" my original, fictional, example "wrong". This is not a topic posted in the Help section. This is a Feature Request. The situation mentioned is, as I stated numerous times already, just there to show a use case. There is no "moving goalposts" when there is another use case mentioned. Trying to prove a feature request wrong, you'd have to prove any use case wrong there could possibly be. The goal is the feature, not solving one specific scenario. I ran into dozens of situations where I could have made great use of Symbol Variants, be it speeding up my workflow tremendously, be it making a specific artwork feasible in the first place. 2. I appreciate your artistic use of Designer's tools, but using global colors combined with a rect just to project the color via a gradient layer adjusting said color only to do something that should be done with merely a mindless push of a button, is painful to watch. Just being able to do something doesn't make it viable within a workflow. I can also adjust each apple individually without any symbols whatsoever and get the same end result. Yet, I am using Designer to get things done. Can a farmer harvest his crops with his bare hands? Sure. But I guess he'd rather not. It's not just much more time consuming in itself - both by pure labor as well as having to put your thought to it -, but more error prone as well the more needlessly complex things become. Not to mention I may not even want the same green and red hues for the darker tones. I may want more of an orange red for the red apples in the lighter areas. Of course, you can go ahead and add yet another adjustment. But I don't want the same hue offset on the green apples. What now? Not possible, I guess. Not feasible, I am quite sure. 3. The apples are still missing their differently sized outlines and Gaussian Blur of different strengths, including a leaf on only one of them, which also syncs only across one type of apple.

Well, then prove it showing a screen recording. Seriously, I'd be glad if you were right. It'd be great if this could be done already. But having debated enough about "Sync only some Symbols" with repeated statements this would be possible already, but lacking proof thereof, it really seems to be just disagreeing for the sake of it.

+1 for C#, C++ or JavaScript support, especially for Designer. Please no Python.

Alright, - besides making the workflow much more confusing having to sync colors separately from the symbols themselves - then I don't want green apples and red apples, but apples with a light green to dark green gradient, 5px outline and 5% Gaussian Blur and apples with a light red to dark red gradient, a 10px outline and 2% Gaussian Blur, the latter of which grouped with a leaf. As I stated initially, I just wanted to make an example to illustrate a use case. But since any suggestion I make here turns into nitpicking, completely losing the essence of what I am suggesting, debating any further doesn't seem to make any sense.

If you are talking about 1. Symbol Variants https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/155859-symbol-variants/ 2. Nested Symbols https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/155795-nested-symbols/ 3. Sync only some Symbols https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/155481-sync-only-some-symbols/ , then no, those are not the same at all. Each one faces a different issue and each one suggest its separate solution to that issue. Not having read a lot of the new feature releases of Affinity software the last few years, I was quite surprised they haven't implemented "Nested Symbols" yet, since it's not that much further development wise, yet makes the feature much more profound. While "Symbol Variants" and "Sync only some symbols" have their own issues and solutions, I guess "Symbol Variants" would be a much more powerful feature, since it can also solve the core of the "Sync only some symbols" issue. It doesn't solve all of it, but with "Symbol Variants", it'd be possible to work around that problem with some more time investment (not perfect, but at least possible). So I'd say the variants are a better solution compared to syncing only some symbols. That said, "Sync only some symbols" would be easier to implement.

Hey @Callum ! This is very easy to replicate, even on macOS. Here you go: Untitled.afdesign

Hey everyone! Note that the following is just an example to illustrate the need of this feature. The real world scenarios can be far more complex and therefore making this much more useful. I'd like to be able to: - Create a green apple - Make it a symbol - Duplicate the green apple - Make the duplicate a variant of the green apple - Turn syncing to variant only (not syncing all, not syncing off!) - Make the variant red * - Turn the syncing back to syncing all - Duplicate green and red apples a few times, arrange them - Now, be able to --> edit the green apples' shape and the red apples change their shapes as well --> edit the red apples' shape and the green apples change their shapes as well --> edit the green apples' color without changing the color of the red apples --> edit the red apples' color without changing the color of the green apples. This is just an example. Being able to selectively sync with inheritance would make Symbols a much more flexible feature. (* this should automatically add a new symbol, which is linked to the original one synching - all the data that hasn't been edited while variant syncing to all instances, including original as well as all variants - only the specific variant's data that has been edited while variant syncing to all instances of that variant). Best wishes, Shu This feature should even make things like this obsolete:

In my original post, I stated, that concerning the (fictional) example (not intended to be "solved", but rather as an example this currently positively cannot be done), I made those leaves a symbol already. Generally speaking, though, it doesn't matter. Both should work: - Syncing a group of leaves which aren't symbols when the parent ("Branch") is a Symbol itself, which doesn't even make a nested symbol, so this already works. - Syncing a group of symbol leaves being a child of the "Branch" symbol, making the leaves nested symbols. Of course, only the latter will sync all the leaves as Symbols. That's why I suggested this feature. The former can use Symbol functionality on branch level, the latter currently only on the level of the leaves. Both doesn't work. But I think it should. Also, I think for each layer of nesting depth, the symbol highlight color (currently orange) should be different, so you know there are nested symbols.

It's quite simple: I want symbol syncing functionality on different levels within the same hierarchy. Symbol syncing includes all properties that are synced by symbol declarations. I wrote the leaves and branches example just to illustrate the situation. To keep the illustration, I want - but not limited to this - be able to - change one leaf's color, rotation, position relative to its current object position and that's mirrored to all instances - mirror a leave and sync this to all instances - mirror, recolor, rotate, reposition a branch (the shape within the symbol that also contains a bunch of leaves attached to the branch) and sync this to all branches - .... just any change a symbol would sync. Being more specific in listing all of the properties doesn't really have any use. Just symbol functionality within the same hierarchy on different levels with the changes being applied to all instances of each of the symbols. Also, of course, regarding one of your questions. I want to be able to, just like any symbol does - change any shape located within the symbol as well as - change any group within the symbol. It doesn't really matter, both should work if Nested Symbols were implemented. Let's say I have the following Symbols: - Branch - Leaf_Green - Leaf_Orange The Symbols themselves would contain: - Branch: --> Branch Shape --> Leaves (Group) ---> Leaf_Green (10 duplicates) ---> Leaf_Orange (10 duplicates) - Leaf_Green: --> Base --> Detail - Leaf_Orange: --> Base --> Detail The Symbols could be used like this: - Branch (10 duplicates) - Leaf_Green (50 duplicates) - Leaf_Orange (20 duplicates) to add some more leaves that aren't within a branch to get some variety. But still, one should be able to change the leaf shape's properties (any of which!) or a branch shape's properties (any of which!) or even the branch setup and mirror all changes to each instance. Let's say I want a branch to contain a sub branch and I change the branch symbol to - Branch: --> Branch Shape --> Branch Shape small --> Branch Shape small 2 --> Leaves (Group) ---> Leaf_Green (10 duplicates) ---> Leaf_Orange (10 duplicates) , that should edit all the branches to contain "Branch Shape small" and "Branch Shape small 2" as well, since they use the same Symbol. But all that text really just boils down to being able to sync symbols on multiple levels within the same hierarchy.

Thanks! Solving this would be great!

Hey everyone! I'd like to suggest supporting Nested Symbols. Let's take a branch of a tree, for example. Right now, I can create a leaf, make it a symbol, duplicate it, edit one - all instances show the changes. However, I'd like to be able to - Put some leaves into a group - Put another shape into the group ("Branch Shape") - Make the group a new Symbol ("Branch") - Duplicate "Branch" - Now, be able to do both: ---> edit all the leaves by editing one leaf on one "Branch" instance ---> edit all the branches by editing one "Branch Shape" within one "Branch" instance. This would make the Symbols feature much more flexible and much more useful. Some references where this has been partly discussed: Best wishes, Shu

This isn't "using" nested Symbols. You're just grouping symbols, which works. But this doesn't enable syncing on multiple levels of a hierarchy. You do create one instance of a nested symbol, but the second symbol you create only shows one instance. If you duplicate that instance ("Smpl Compound") - if nested symbols were working - you should be able to do both: - modify the first symbol with all instances mirroring the behaviour (works) as well as - modify the second symbol with all instances mirroring the behaviour (<- clearly not working!) Either way, nested symbols is a different matter anyway and I doubt you can do what I am asking for here using nested symbols (, which, still, don't even work).

+1 Would save quite some time.

How would you make nested symbols work? Doesn't work for me. If it worked, I could rotate the top level symbol and the other top level symbol would rotate as well, which it doesn't: https://www.shushustorm.com/_Uploads/Serif/macOS/1_10_4/NestedSymbolsNotWorking.mov Alright, to make things very simple: I want it to look like this: https://www.shushustorm.com/_Uploads/Serif/macOS/1_10_4/SyncOnlySomeSymbols.jpg and behave like this: https://www.shushustorm.com/_Uploads/Serif/macOS/1_10_4/SyncOnlySomeSymbols.mov , which, to my knowledge, isn't currently possible, yet I run into things like that quite often. If this doesn't enlighten you either, I don't know how to help any further. I just wanted to pitch this idea, since this would improve my workflow significantly, but if by length I cannot even make you understand what I am aiming for, I guess Serif will have a hard time doing marketing on this if this was ever considered, making it even less likely to be implemented.

Thanks @Dan C ! Hoping for this to get fixed!

Hey everyone! When I want to duplicate a selection, I have to touch & hold twice, each time waiting for the menu to appear, just to select "Copy" once and "Paste" once. It'd be better to just be able to select "Duplicate" within the very same menu. It gets exhausting when doing this often. Best wishes, Shu

That's a great deal of simplifying. Even in the official tutorial for Symbols, which goes through the very basics, you can see independent changes by using the turn off sync button: https://affinity.serif.com/de/tutorials/designer/desktop/video/301628203/ I do want certain aspects of my symbols to be reflected on each instance, of course. Otherwise, there would be no use for them. But I don't want all its properties to be mirrored exactly to all the individual instances. Of course, for many aspects, I can move, rotate, edit the container (via grouping) of a symbol in order to achieve this, but still, it can be quite limiting, just like in the example I showed, I cannot modify the new arrangement to show a new graphic without breaking the symbol links. If I create a new symbol, the changes I make to the new one aren't reflected to the original symbol. So that's not going to work. Nested symbols is also not a thing, unfortunately, so I can't go that way either. I tried explaining the video again in my original post by paraphrasing. But other than that, I don't know how I would make the issue clear. I think it should be compehensible.