fde101

I think they should be *in* the Typography panel (in a new section that can optionally collapse just like the existing ones).

In that case you should be able to just toss out the app bundle. Particularly since Serif distributes on the App Store and Apple requires the app to be fully self-contained within its bundle - things can't go anywhere else, so all you would really be leaving behind are preferences, and the stuff that the other apps now share.

For v1: Throw it in the trash. Empty the trash. For v2: also need to track down and remove the stuff that is installed from your account, if anything, unless shared with the other Affinity apps and those are being kept - not sure offhand where that is stored...

Many people generate PDFs to distribute over the internet. The larger the PDF is, the more bandwidth is consumed by each user who downloads it, each time they download it, and the longer it will take to download - making users wait unnecessarily long does not help to keep them happy. Many companies hosting files for people to download also pay for bandwidth, meaning that smaller files are cheaper to offer.

Just make sure we keep the v2 requests for this in one thread. Things get more confusing when they wind up scrambled all over the forum.

Serif had actually suggested that we should for requests which are still relevant. That was way back when v2 had just been released. Thankfully they don't make us "shell" out any additional money for posting our requests...

Because Serif made the same questionable choice in the opposite direction for that tool. Instead of ignoring Cycle Selection Box and forcing page orientation as Transform Objects Separately does, the Make Same commands instead ignore Cycle Selection Box and act on base box orientation instead. This does not appear to be a bug, and is not related to the beta. Both behaviors are valid, and are existing behaviors in 1.4, but the opposite behaviors are questionably missing from each of the two tools.

It does not align at all. When multiple objects are selected they are scaled based on their orientation to the page, regardless of the orientation of their base box. In other words, it scales their actual width on the page, not their width relative to their rotated coordinate system. Even in 1.4 it works this way, not related to using the "=" feature. It would be nice to be able to toggle this behavior as well when using Transform Objects Separately (we already can when working with single selected objects using Cycle Bounding Box so not sure why it should be different with multiple objects selected), but I believe that is a separate request.

They are not simplifying it artificially. They are ignoring nodes that are already flagged to be ignored by the file they are reading the shape from. To simplify an arbitrary existing shape they would need an algorithm to identify which nodes to remove and/or adjust, which is not part of what they are doing here.

These two goals are basically opposites of each other. When you draw with the pencil tool you are providing a continuous set of points with no real stops to indicate which ones are "important" to you, leaving the software to guess. How would it know which ones to straighten into a line segment and where it should make a turn to start a new one?

@GarryP that is not what @A_B_C is asking for - I understood the request quite clearly, and it is an obvious thing to have in place, which I definitely believe should have been there from the beginning. The request is not to open or close the entire panel, but the individual sections within the panel, all at once. In other words, clicking the triangle to collapse or expand "Ligatures", "Figure Position", "Capitals", etc. - but instead of just one of them, when a modifier is held down, collapse or expand all of them at the same time. The idea is that if they are all expanded, you could collapse all of them at once, then expand individually the one you are interested in, without having to go hunt through the expanded sections that might have the one you are looking for scrolled out of view.

No need for algorithms for a simple 1D barcode. Just use a font.

This is almost as bad as RED getting a patent on lossy-compressed RAW encodings that happen to be above a certain resolution. Making it specific to high resolutions suddenly gets past prior art of doing exactly the same thing at lower resolutions, which had been around since before RED existed? Patenting a specific algorithm for doing that - maybe, but stretching it. Patenting it as a concept? Inexcusable. There is plenty of software which moved (or duplicated) sliders and numeric fields onto the canvas in the form of handles, so creating on-canvas handles for yet another set of sliders is suddenly inventive enough to be patentable? The patent offices may be stupid enough to let something like that slide, but they certainly shouldn't be. Direct manipulation of just about anything should be an obvious end goal by now, hardly inventive enough to be considered for a patent, even if no one else has tried it yet.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iqr-codes-qr-code-art-studio/id491390884?mt=12

What would be really interesting would be to also find a way to represent at least some of the common ones as handles on the letters (when zoomed in far enough!!!) the way that handles are used for rounding rectangles and shaping gears and the like... The Typography panel would be a logical place for these otherwise, in my way of thinking.