Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About matt.baker

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

554 profile views
  1. I have a file with two overlapping shapes, one rotated +90 degrees and the other -90 degrees. If I perform an add operation there is a joining line. However, if I rotate both shapes -90 degrees releative to their previous position (clockwise in the software) so that they become 0 degrees and 180 degrees respectively, the add operation performs as expected. Add operation.afdesign
  2. @Bri-Toon, that's a good point and the colour option also seems like a good addition. This may also be of interest:
  3. Also would be useful in the following case to show the number of lines/segments to determine if the path is closed as they both appear the same:
  4. Thanks for the explanation @JET_Affinity I understand how Affinity handles it with the control points; it was just my intuition being way off and not thinking n nodes allows for a maximum of n lines/segments per path. As soon as one of these lines becomes a curve, it seems obvious to allow a closed path and I can see why disallowing closed paths for straight lines may be a hindrance to the user. Two more suggestions then: numerical manipulation of the control points and the number of lines / segments in addition to the number of nodes per path.
  5. I'd never really considered it before. Perhaps it could be improved with a reason for why the curve join, or any operation for that matter, failed? Another one for migration to the feature requests and feedback forum I guess.
  6. Well spotted. I had just come to the same conclusion. I would have expected a minimum of 3 nodes to close a curve. Confused. Is that the real bug?
  7. The lines in this document don't work with the join curves tool: Join curves failure.afdesign These were from a PDF import of this: Sanus VLF628_TD_180917.pdf
  8. I've seen this topic raised before and I'm sure the devs are well aware of the need for scripting, but the previous features requests seem to have been moved to "Older Feature Requests & Suggestion Posts" and I wanted to keep it in the fore-front. Providing a method manipulate the document and interface programmatically using a customisable set of common UI controls would be such a huge step forward and allow the number of features to grow exponentially: As will always be the case, in almost all software, the development can't keep up with the sheer number of feature requests. At least with some sort of scripting, a number of these features could be implemented by the community, even if it is just an interim workaround/patch. They may not be the most refined implementation and some may even be darn right hacky, but at least it simplifies someone's work-flow. Below are some prime candidates where the community could use scripting to implement missing/desired features in a more timely manner. Simplify path (starting with the easier straight line only version) Convert nodes to basic shape (rectangle and circle) - basic shape pattern matching of selected nodes. Merge node doubles/duplicates Select same color / fill / stroke / appearance Select/filter by type Measure line/path length/distance in addition to displacement Offset path I know this is a huge undertaking to implement and lots of thought to go into this, but I could see it paying itself back in the long-run.
  9. The object snapping seems to order snapping candidate preference in order of most recently selected, which works really well. I would like a similar behaviour for nodes. This would allow for aligning nodes horizontally and vertically. I did try the alignment tools, but it doesn't appear to work with nodes, only objects. Even if it worked, the guides would allow for faster alignment in this case.
  10. Further to my previous suggestion for showing the number of selected nodes, it would be nice to have a remove doubles operation that merges all nodes that are within a certain radius of other nodes into a single node. Again, borrowing from Blender 3D: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/modeling/meshes/editing/vertices.html#remove-doubles
  11. Instead of Click + Shift or Drag + Shift it would make sense to change it to Shift + Click and Shift + Drag respectively. This then matches the natural operation order and convention of key modifier first e.g. Ctrl + Alt + Delete would never (under normal circumstances) be written Delete + Ctrl + Alt.
  12. Why would this be useful? The below should sum it up. Even in outline view with zoom at maximum you cant tell. For objects it shows how many are selected, but not for vertices/nodes.
  13. Move tool marquee selection Shift + marquee select adds objects to the selection if not already selected and removes items if already selected. Node tool marquee selection Shift + marquee select always adds to node selection even when re-marquee selecting currently selected nodes.
  14. The line in the attached document is unselectable using the move or node tool and clicking on the line. However, if the line is rotated, it becomes selectable. It's gotten into an unusual state which may be of interest to the devs. New lines behave as expected and are selectable, even when rotated by 90 degrees. Unable to select line.afdesign
  15. Lasso and circular object selection tools would be useful. Similar to Blender 3D: https://docs.blender.org/manual/fi/dev/modeling/meshes/selecting/introduction.html#selection-mode With variable selection 'brush' diameter.