codehead

Thanks. I did consider that there was probably a capability to make a master/linked shape, after I decided I need them a little larger, but I didn't anticipate that need in the beginning. (In this particular use, the dots can be fine when the whole image is at a certain scale, but when shrinking the image, the dots are the only part that need to be relatively larger to compensate.) Still, I think the app should default to scaling objects individually. It might make sense to spread the objects when scaling up if the objects are grouped, but as individual objects, it makes more sense to scale the objects without changing their origins. In other words, selecting a bunch of objects and scaling up should have the meaning, "make these objects bigger", only. Another way to describe it is: If you have several 28 pt text objects and select all of them, then set font size to 14 pt, they all change their font size but they remain in their original positions. However, if you use the transform tab to scale 50% (*=.5), it shrinks the collection (altering locations)—the same as if you scaled by corner-dragging the selection rectangle. I don't know, this is so obvious that it seems like I'm missing an alternate way of doing it—though I don't see any indication of that in the docs.

I believe it's a bug—I should check for open bugs and report it if not. The issue is this: As you increase the stroke, it expands in both direction: outward and inward. Once the inward edge reaches the center, it starts growing the other way as clear (and the bigger it gets, the less circular).

Nice economy of design, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do this—please tell me if there is: I have a lot of identical dots (circle tool) in a layer. Each is strategically located—I want to make each of them larger, but identically-sized and without changing their center location. If I select the entire layer, the transform works on the whole selection area, making it larger (spreading the dots so they don't keep their intended positions). I worked around it, marginally, by making a larger stroke (originally no stroke) of the same color as the center fill. There are limitations there without scaling the circle—see following comment—but I could at least improve the size a bit. (BTW, I don't quite get why making the stroke larger, when the circle is much smaller, just makes the outer circle larger and the white area expands...and not circular. Image attached of a 6-pixel red-filled circle with 60-pixel blue stroke.)