GarryP

If you look here: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/3794-ad-bezier-handle-snapping/ ...you can see it’s been an outstanding request for a while now (since 2014). (Edit: This isn't true either, just ignore it.)

That just can’t be done at the moment – it’s the same for other node control handles elsewhere too. (Edit: This bit isn't true.)

Since the Place Tool has its own – currently empty, in Designer and Photo – Context Toolbar, that might be a nice place to have a checkbox for this, maybe with a few other options for how the image should be resized (max fit, min fit, etc.). Maybe this could be extended further by allowing the user to get the image to fit within the selected layer is there is one, but I don’t know how well that would work in practice as I’ve not thought about it much. Might be worth adding a feature request and seeing if anything happens.

Welcome to the forums @Marielw I’ve just tried copying the URL text from your example document (when viewing it in Firefox) and pasting it into a text editor. I didn’t get any extra space at the end, and using Paste and Go (Firefox bar) got me to the web page as expected. However, selecting the text and then right-clicking and trying “Go to…” caused a 404 error because at least one space was inserted into the URL (before “adelaide”). On the other hand, I’ve just tried my own long URL text in a PDF and the URL works just fine either by clicking on it, or copy/paste-into-browser-bar, or right-click-Go. Are you sure you didn’t add a new line separator? Would you be able to share the original document (AFPUB) so we can look at it. In lieu of a solution to this my recommendation would be to use a URL shortening service to create shorter URLs.

Welcome to the forums @Hardos Please see this FAQ thread: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/190017-affinity-22-update-notification-error/ (Basically you will not be able to open the V2.2 documents until V2.2 comes out ‘for real’.)

Have you checked the Tint of the various colours which look the same? The Tint value is local to the layer, doesn’t make a difference to the colour values, and a slightly different Tint might look the same but is not picked up as being the same colour by the Select Same Fill Colour functionality during a little test I did. Are any of the colours, which look the same, Global Colours? Global Colours are not picked up as being the same colour as non-Global Colours with the same colour values by the Select Same Fill Colour functionality, during another little test I did. (I don’t know if either of these things are expected behaviour.)

Thanks for the screenshots. Note: When giving us a screenshot, please show us the whole of the application window, including the main Toolbar; we have more information that way. When your line has an odd number of pixels, and the line is pixel-aligned (its centre is at a pixel boundary), the software is trying to draw a half-pixel on each side of the line (e.g. width of 5 pixels divided by 2 = 2.5 pixels each side). This is where the grey comes from as the software tries to draw something that only half-exists. The same thing happens when you have an even number of pixels and the line is aligned to the centre of a pixel. What you are seeing is normal for Photo, and you can see the same thing in Designer’s Pixel Mode.

Good catch. With “Edit All Layers” switched OFF, after selecting the rectangle and using menu “Select → Select Same → Fill Colour”, I only have the initially-selected rectangle selected. However, with “Edit All Layers” switched OFF, after selecting the star and using menu “Select → Select Same → Fill Colour”, I have both the star and the cog selected. This means that, if I have interpreted things correctly, with “Edit All Layers” switched OFF, menu “Select → Select Same → Fill Colour” will only look at layers within the current Artboard, including child Artboards. (And I believe that this is the expected behaviour.)

Welcome to the forums @Nigel Owen The Affinity applications only create ‘static’ results so there’s no way to output/export something which has ‘moving parts’. To get what you want, if I have understood the requirements properly, would be very much dependent upon where/how people are viewing the images, and that movement would have to be generated/provided by something other than the Affinity applications, such as a web page CSS, or animation software, some bespoke coding, or similar. If I have not understood the requirements properly then it might be useful to give us more information about what you are trying to do and where/how you will be using the result.

I’m not getting the same results as you, unless I am misunderstanding what you have said – see attached video. Would you be able to supply an example document which exhibits the behaviour you mention? (And a step-by-step workflow to reproduce the problem.) I’ve attached my document so you can check if you get a different result to me. 2023-08-19 10-06-08.mp4 select-same-fill.afdesign

In addition to the advice above, it looks like you might need to ‘tidy-up’ the original curve layer before using the Contour Tool. Sometimes, for example when the original curve has 'overlapping' nodes, the Contour Tool can look like it gets a bit ‘confused’ and creates ‘holes’ where you might not expect them. (It’s normally doing what it has been ‘told’, given the curve it can see, but it’s maybe not what we might expect.) Try editing the original curve (not the result of using the Contour Tool) with the Node Tool and closely inspecting the areas where the Contour Tool seems to be making the ‘holes’. You will possibly find that the curve isn’t quite as simple as it first looks and needs to be ‘simplified’ so that it is a continuous curve which doesn’t ‘come back on itself’ or overlap at any point. If you can copy the original curve layer (not the result of using the Contour Tool) to a new document and share that new document here then we can assist you in finding out what’s happening.

Welcome to the forums @Christopher Orozco Assuming that you are talking about the Symmetry functionality of the Paint Brush Tool (and some other tools)… Rather than having one or more single-purpose buttons to reset the symmetry centre axis point (the ‘origin’) to the centre of the document, would it be more useful if the centre axis point respected the user’s Snapping settings while being dragged? By respecting the Snapping settings the user could easily move the centre axis point to anywhere that can be snapped to, including the document centre, rather than just the document centre. This may be an existing, related, feature request: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/181968-affinity-photo-symmetry-doesnt-snap-to-the-center-of-the-canvas/

Issues with the beta software should be reported in the relevant beta section of the forums. A moderator will move this thread for you so there’s no need to create another thread for this elsewhere.

The Node Tool has a Lasso select mode (and a Polygon select mode) – to select nodes (points), see the Status Bar – but the Move Tool doesn’t.

Have a look at the Transform Panel – see the Help on that for more details. There are also things coming in V2.2 that will make this easier - see the relevant beta section(s) of the forums for more information.

Both good questions. For most non-trivial documents, especially those which have a complex ‘layer tree’, selecting a layer in the way suggested, and as shown in the attached video, would be fairly useless, even more especially as there doesn’t seem to be a thumbnail preview of the layers so the user has to pretty-much guess which layer they are selecting from the name (which may be ‘generic’) and have a good overall organisational sense of their document. The existing Cut/Set-insert-method/Paste method would seem much easier/better to me since the user can more-easily select the new parent layer via either the Layers Panel or the canvas and see what they are selecting much more easily. All-in-all, as the case for change has been presented here, I don’t see it being an improvement.

@fredrikonline I see that your document unit of measure (UOM) is centimetres (see top-left corner of the rulers). I can’t see the position of the line which is selected because you have the Node Tool selected but, if the X position of the line or the Stroke width is also specified in centimetres, then that could be a cause of the problem. Your document will have a dots per inch (DPI) setting which is measured in inches, which tell the software how many pixels there are in each inch. If you are measuring things in centimetres then it’s unlikely that you will have chosen a centimetre size which translates to an integer pixel size – inches and centimetres have very few ‘common factors’. Try changing the document UOM to pixels (right-click the UOM on the ruler corner – where it currently says “cm” – and choose “Pixels”), then check the X value of the line in the Transform Panel, when you have the line selected, to make sure that it is an integer number of pixels and also check to see if the Stroke width is an integer number of pixels. The bottom line here is that, if you want to be ‘pixel-perfect’ then you need to use a document UOM of pixels and make sure that, for lines at least, you are specifying X/Y positions by integer pixel values and have a stroke width of an integer pixel value, otherwise antialiasing will probably occur (unless you have done some other things, some of which have already been mentioned). To sum-up: Change the UOM to pixels; Select the layer with the Move Tool; Check the X/Y positions of the line are integer pixel values; Check the Stroke width is an integer pixel value.

You said you were trying to draw a straight black line, but you now mention centring the image. Is that just a language translation issue or do you have an image of a line? If you have an image of a line, how did you get that? (I have a feeling that you might have rasterised something when you didn’t need to rasterise it.) Can you show us a full-screen screen shot where we can see the ‘problem layer’ selected in the Layers Panel ?

In a Frame Text layer, with the text selection point active, type either G+xxx or U+xxx (where xxx is a hex value) then select the G+xxx or U+xxx and use menu “Text → Toggle Unicode”, or press Alt+U when you have finished typing the xxx bit of the hex code. (Basically you missed out point 3 of the instructions.) Video attached. 2023-08-17 12-58-31.mp4

Welcome to the forums @fredrikonline In addition to the advice above, it looks to me like you have used a stroke width of 4 pixels and the X coordinate is mid-pixel (not an integer) so the software is trying to draw two pixels – each side of the line – over three pixels, which is why you get the grey ‘border’ (because of antialiasing). Photo always shows you the document at ‘document pixel resolution’ so, in this case, try moving the line so its centre is aligned to the grid to get two pixels either side of the line and therefore no ‘border’. See attached image where the left-hand line is aligned to the grid but the right-hand line is not.

As far as I know that sort of thing has not been implemented, but you can use Cut, then select the new parent layer, then use “Insert inside Selection” (on the toolbar), and then Paste.

I’ve just tried to Open the example file into Photo, Designer and Publisher (all 2.1.1) on my Windows 10 laptop and I got the same message as the OP each time. (Trying to Place the same file instead of Open got me a similar message, as did “Add Pages from File” in Publisher.)

Would an alternative to this be: “Remove automatically-generated anchors for TOC entries for a particular style when that style is removed from the TOC”? Or, having a user setting which tells the software which text style prefix to look for when initially creating the TOC styles? Is there also something a bit strange when a Style is removed from the TOC and then put back? See attached video where the anchors are nicely arranged at the start but they’re not after some removal/adding, with (sometimes) Heading 1’s being ‘inside’ Heading 2’s. (Is this a separate problem?) 2023-08-17 08-03-56.mp4

You're very welcome.

In addition to thomaso’s suggestion, in Designer only there’s also the Shape Builder Tool – see attached video for a ‘serving suggestion’. Make sure that the offset of the first duplicated Donut is the right amount (I used the field expressions to help me); Use Power Duplicate to create the other duplicates; Trim the end Donuts with the Node Tool; With Shape Builder Tool, drag a path through the bits of the shape you want to keep; Press Enter to make the new shape; Delete the shapes you no longer want. 2023-08-16 14-16-39.mp4