Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bpedit

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Chico, CA
  • Interests
    App design/programming, Guitar (playing and building), 3D Modeling & Animation, Woodworking, Hiking

Recent Profile Visitors

485 profile views
  1. bpedit

    SVG Export Scale Issue

    Thanks, I gave it a try. But I seem to have the opposite result with Carbide Create (CC). I changed the dpi [from 300] to 96, as you suggested, but that made the CC import too small by a factor of 24 instead of the 5.6 I was getting. Since it seems to be an inverse relationship, I tried raising the dpi to 1000. This produced a CC import that was almost half-size. Seemingly on the right track, I tried a dpi of 2000 but it made no difference from 1000. I guess Designer has a limit. Very curious why Designer would relate vector scale to dpi, of what use is dictating a size in that case.
  2. Please, keep the ability to edit PDFs! This is currently my only use for Publisher (now that I've retired from form other uses).
  3. Thanks! Good kludge. I'll have to test whether I can "convert to curves" in order to move some of them around a bit to produce a pattern more like a stipple. Edit: This will not work. When the text is converted to curves, the resulting "circles" are composed of two concentric circles. I need simple, single line circles. Thanks for giving it a shot.
  4. Is there a way, with AD, to paint vector circles? That is, moving the brush would leave a path of small circles with spaces between them. The purpose would be to create a stippling like effect. This is a common facet of pixel paint brushes but I need vectors to feed into a CAD program.
  5. How about a way to permanently reset (make orthagonal) the selection box. Maybe double clicking on the responsible button?
  6. This make no sense to me, at least for my use. "Correctly" must be in the eye of the beholder. The reset boundry box still fits "exactly around the shape" unless you're speaking to the simple case of rotating a rectangle versus a vector drawing. Even then the fit is exact although not orthagonal.
  7. How convenient! Why wouldn't a permanent rotation be the default? Edit: One issue with this method is that it appears to close open lines!
  8. bpedit

    SVG Export Scale Issue

    Bingo! Thanks, I didn't read the fine print. But I still get the wrong scaling in Carbide Create. My 50.0 mm test frame imports at 8.954 mm, still the same ~5.6 scale-up needed as in my other imports.
  9. bpedit

    SVG Export Scale Issue

    Hey Sean, thanks for running this; Indeed, your 10mm opens about 9mm in Carbide Create (CC). This is much different than my experience. I have done several manipulations like greatly enlarging the document and object size but still see the huge size reduction. In fact, I've just made my own 10mm circle which measures 1.79 mm in CC. (There it is again, the 5.6X factor.) An apparently knowledgeable source on the Carbide 3D forum states that the DPI should have nothing to do with this. This makes sense considering SVGs are vectors. So I'm wondering what gets you closer to 1:1 I'm working in mm, sounds like you are too. But even if I can replicate your results, it's not good enough for my use where inlays must match pockets and engraving must fit precisly on the inlay. I.e., multiple toolpaths executed from multiple SVGs at multiple times needing to coincide. My workflow right now is to use Designer to create the art then copy the image and paste it into Graphic (iDraw). Then I use Graphic to create the SVG which sizes perfectly in CC. One other advantage of Graphic over Designer is that Graphic allows creation of SVGs from a layer or selected objects. Designer seems to export everything including hidden layers meaning I have to save a copy for each layer I want to export and delete the remaining layers from that copy. More files, more confusion, especially if I want to modify. Here's my 10 mm circle from AD: 10mmCircle_2.svg PS: Strange that AD opens its own creation at a different size!
  10. I'm creating simple Bezier line drawings in Designer and exporting them as SVG files. When I import them into Carbide Create, a CAM app for running a CNC machine, the scaling is too small, generally by a factor of about 5.6. I can't just scale up for two reasons. The lines get choppy and the scale factor is not always exactly the same. I've tried a number of parameter changes to no avail. I have tried this process with iDraw and Inkscape, both export with proper scaling. When I import a Designer created SVG into either Inkscape or iDraw, I also must rescale the image although not necessarily with the same factor as Carbide Create. So, I suspect this is more an issue of how Designer is handling the SVGs.
  11. Has this issue been resolved? I'm having a similar issue exporting SVGs to a CNC program, Carbide Create. Unlike the OP here, my issues prevails regardless of DPI setting. The imported image needs to be scaled up about 5.6 times to approximate actual size. I've tried tests exporting from iDraw and results are spot on so I think this is an Affinity issue.
  12. JET_Affinity I haven't use AI since my original post, I think CS2 or 3 was as high as I used because of an updated OS and a refusal to suport Adobe's subscription menatality. So I can't attest to the arrowhead tool in the current AI. I know I didn't like the arrowhead tool they had in the versions I used, it seemed compromised by being part of a general end-of-lines tool. So, you absolutely feel the the arrowhead functionality I envision would be uncompromised by being lumped in with general end-of-line stuff even though the adjustable parameters I'd like to see for arrowheads only make sense in the context of arrowheads? All I'm asking is that if these adjustable parameters would not be implemented as part of a general end-of-line stuff tool, make arrowheads a separate tool. I can't imagine why you seem to take extreme umbrage with this.
  13. So how do you picture the ability to, say, adjust the angle of the arrowhead fitting in with your "modern related features"? I worry this ability, and a corner rounding parameter, wouldn't be germain to your other applications and would be left out of the feature set. If you are compromising the arrowhead feature set to make it a generic tool, I think it should be a separate tool. I don't argue against your needs or wishes; I'm unclear on why you would wish to potentially compromise mine. You did read the initial post? At least as far as my experience goes with AI, Freehand, Canvas, etc., I'm asking for something a bit more robust than "ordinary old fashioned arrowheads".
  14. OP checking in. I see I've been hijacked! While I appreciate the wishes of others, I sure hope all this digression from arrowheads doesn't compromise the utility of, well, arrowheads. Many of the "add-ons" being requested here would not, in any meaningful way, be enhanced by the kind of controllable parameters as I envision a robust arrowhead utility. The idea of lumping arrowheads into just another option to put stuff on the ends of lines is worrysome, I'd rather this be thought of as an independant request. Lumping arrowheads into a generic stuff-on-lines not only threatens dilution of their utility but likely delays implementation even longer.
  15. Thank you, that does show the issue. If there is no other object beneath the cursor it will behave as you observed. But, as in firstdefence's example, try selecting a rectangle in a row other than the bottom. The issue only occurs when there is another object, other than the one desired for selection, immediately adjacent and occupying the bulk of the area under the cursor. It feel as if the cursor selects the object occupying the greatest area under its entire graphical outline.

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.