JeffreyK

I think the ID examples are a little different since since with numbered or bullet lists we are talking about hanging distances. The space from the edge of an image is pushed relative to the set margin, but the space of the hanging lines to be in line with the first line being spaced away from the number or bullet is where the issue comes in. I guess it's about doing a check if the number/bullet first line is being pushed away from it's margin and then pushing the following lines the same distance.

Thanks Gabe I manually adjusted the paragraph spacing and that is a work around on a small scale. I think if it were a bigger document it won't be too practical when text can easily move around. It's not about the space between the number and text as much as it's from the second line of each paragraph is pushing under the text which makes the layout look broken. Well, since I don't see too many people adding to this with the same challenge it could be added as something to look into at a later stage.

Indirectly this isn't a Bug, but it's a bit of a layout breaker. When an image is pushing bullet or numbered text out of the way the spacing breaks. I surmise that it's because the spacing is being done from the edge of the paragraph block or the page and the image offsetting it isn't accounted for. It seems to switch to using auto-generated tab spacing which isn't totally working. You can see it below. Is there any way when an image is offsetting the text that it takes this as the new zero? I can see a challenge if its only part of a paragraph being pushed. My example is a bit cleaner since I sized that way, fitting exactly on the numbers/paragraphs. Thanks.

So to expand a little on this, since it's still vexing me. I did some tests using the boolean Add as directed in comments from other forums. This works only if there are two parts. As soon as it's three shapes then it doesn't check overlapping nodes, it just creates its own lines to close the three shapes independently. I have tried selecting the two nodes and joining, reversing one curve and doing the same, selecting one node and dropping it on top of another node. None of it makes a difference. I'll keep testing and searching, I really want to make this work.

It would extend the usefulness of styles if they could also align text vertically, do edge spacing and fill paragraph boxes. Some times it's nice to have a header with a colour blocked background. I'm not sure if this is standard breaking or not practical but if feels like it could be a great addition to the document wide formatting. Thanks.

Affinity team, please, put some work into the node welding. I'm seeing this topic keeps coming up and yet years later its generally not working. Two nodes on top of each other, same object, two curves and the nodes won't weld together. Curve direction is an issue since each curve may be in a different direction, this should be fixed at run time when the two nodes are combined. New curve should preserve both sides of the node, so a check if it needs to be cusp, smooth or symmetrical. That's it. I know this is a huge mathematical/coding challenge but your team is challenging big players in the industry (and doing a really good job over all so far) so you have to face this issue at some point and conquer it. This is a very basic need, the fact that it's an issue is a really a bad mark on an incredible piece of software. Please, please, please address this.

I have seen this happen in other software when the two objects shapes/curves are in the same direction or in different directions when combined. Perhaps try reversing the direction of one of the two then do it again?

So this one is reproducible. Funny how I needed this shape, its the middle of the Centenary Bank logo if you were wondering. So I use the trimming from the letters expanded outlines and that gives me the cross bar. Next I Add the two parts together, and ... well ... that's when the mathematics breaks. Please see attached, it seems to be the top left and right sharp angles that are getting it confused. If you flip the cross bar over it welds to the to bottom points. Can some one please test this for me and confirm it's a bug. Running the latest (v1.8.0.585) Thanks. Not_able_to_join.afdesign

Well, ya, but they break their own standards. :) I would imagine there is more than one version of WMF and EMF the same way there are revisions of the SVG format. Copy and paste converts the vectors into a bitmap image. Not great when you want to break it apart to re-colour, add text and animate the parts. Honestly, this would be the most efficient solution if it worked. As for the Inkscape solution, sure, there are lots of longer ways around but when I'm tasked with rebuilding 10 or 20 slides then it's a pain to have to run around a third party to get it done each slide and worse if I realize I want to revise the design making me do it more than once.

Yip, was just looking for this feature yesterday. I'm pushing everyone I know to buy the Affinity software as I feel it's a game changer. They need to pay catch-up with some features other software has had for many years, which for the most part they have done very well. That said it feels strange that features like this are missing.

Greetings I use Affinity Designer to augment the useless tools in PowerPoint. The strange thing is that when I import a EMF or WMF (or SVG) created by Designer, and then un-group (which converts it), the results are very erratic. Some times there's just a blank block and some times one of the parts is still there in a tiny size. I'm wondering if PowerPoint isn't working on an older standard. Is there a way to export older versions of these formats? From Corel Draw I used to just copy, then paste special in PowerPoint which worked fine. From Designer it only wants to paste a bitmap image. If I take an SVG export and use any random converter to WMF it works fine. Some SVG's just crash PowerPoint out right, but that feels more like a bug from their side. Perhaps we need a switch to export older or "Office compatible" EMF/WMF? I know Microsoft is famous for making up their own versions of formats but it's a real slow down if I have to do online conversion every time I want to pass assets across. Does any one have a solution or quicker work around for this? Thanks. three focus points.emf Untitled.emf

3 suggestions. Firstly, when deleting nodes, AD should try to keep the original curve. The current algorithm leaves a almost straight line between the two remaining points. This makes cleaning up curves much easier (since the couture function is a bit node crazy.) Secondly Node alignments. I was doing an organigram chart and a quick align nodes would have helped a lot to work more quickly and cleanly. I could try guidelines but for this function it can slow things down a bit. Thirdly, nodes welding. The way that nodes join is not good, when I break open a curve where it intersects with it's self it will not weld any of the open points unless they were welded before. Very keen to see how this software develops forward, enjoying the current version already.

I would like to see as many of these features as possible, certainly a +1 here.