Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jackamus

  1. You are saying exactly what I thought - I was merely repeating what Uuiop was saying.I couldn't understand what he was trying to tell me. Yes I simply would like to be able to change the scale but AD doesn't have that feature whereas DrawPlus does.
  2. If I have a square shape that is shown in Transform tab as being 10cm square but I want draw another square the same size (10cm square)but only showing 5cm square in the Transform tab. How do I do this?
  3. How do you chnange the dimensions in the Transform tab without it changing the size of the object or shape?
  4. The strokes used in this file for the all the objects is set at 1.5pt yet the single stroke looks twice as thick as the shapes. Why is this? Stroke thickness.afdesign
  5. Thank you all for your help.
  6. Sorry - you meant the shapes and not the single stroke.
  7. It was unchecked!
  8. I am really disappointed that in the time that Affinity has been out no real serious drawing suggestions have been added. I'm tempted to get a PC and install my old DrawPlus program which had more useful drawing features than Affinity has. I have asked, as well others, for Affinity to try and include most of these DP features but to no avail.
  9. If you don't believe me then take a photo of a cup or glass, load into AD and check it.
  10. I agree that both the ellipse and the circle obey mathematical equations but the extraordinary coincidence is that if you superimpose an ellipse on that of of a circle in perspective they will coincide exactly. This may be no more than a coincidence but it works!. I think our problem is that I do not see an ellipse as a circle in perspective, which it is, but as a shape that exactly fits a perspective circle and as such it should be possible to do the calculations that I first spoke about. If you simply treat the whole thing as an exercise in geometry i.e. lines and angles then it can be calculated. In my time I have constructed many perspective grids with correctly drawn perspective measuring axes so I do understand what it is I'm suggesting. This has now become a major and a minor challenge for me to solve.
  11. Not so!. As I said the ellipse is a TRUE reprentation of a circle in perspective. If you were to draw two lines at right-angles (diameters) of a circle on top of a square (shown in my file), the diameters will not coincide with the ellipse axes. The ellipse major and minor axes must be confused with the diameters of a circle viewed at an angle. They are merely construction lines. See my attached file. In A and B there is no resemblance between the major and minor axes and the perspective diameters of the original circle in perspective. Ellipses 2 .afdesign
  12. An ellipse is the shape that perfectly describes a 'foreshortened' circle. The major and minor axes of the ellipse is not related to the foreshortened diameter of the circle. The major and minor axes are just construction lines. The attached file shows how the proportion of the ellipse B is changed due to viewing angle. However the file does not show the vertical perspective convergence. I maintain that, after constructing the correct perspective, that this vertical convergence angle is proportional to the viewing angle of ellipse B. In other words the 'thinner' ellipse B is the less the convergence angle will be. If A and B were the same proportion then there would be no vertical convergence. Ellipses .afdesign
  13. A further question. Is there a way to store such a function in AD that I could call upon when needed?
  14. Sorry I didn't realize that this was something I could do in AD. Thanks.
  15. Thanks for understanding what I was getting at. I do see the knock-on effect having to add the Deg box to the Transform Tab and its application to all other shapes and objects. I will just have to produce my own table showing degrees based on major and minor axes. This also creates another interesting aspect from a perspective point of view. As an ellipse goes from a straight line at eye level down to a fatter ellipse at ground level, the major axis will be smaller due to perspective distance. This will produce another vertical angle between the eye level ellipse and the ground level ellipse. I would like to investigate this angular relationship to see if there is calculable.
  16. I realize that but the degree can be calculated from the major and minor axis which is shown in the transform panel. This is just a trig function between the two axes. Also if a degree is entered into the degree box it D can calculate. I would also keep it simple by applying the angle to horizontal ellipses only There's no need to do the same for vertical ellipses as they can be rotated.
  17. When you are doing a technical illustration you may want to alter the proportion of an ellipse to fit the perspective. It is easier, as you progress the illustration, to simply increase or decrease the ellipse proportion in degrees, rather than a difficult to visualize minor axis change. This makes it easier to control the illusion of perspective particularly in an exploded view. Since an ellipse is a circle viewed at an angle it would seem sensible to show that angle as figure in degrees in the Transformation panel.
  18. Sorry I don't follow what you are trying to illustrate. Attached is a file explaining what I meant. Ellipse proportions.afdesign
  19. I offered Matt, years ago, a suggestion on how to include a perspective drawing feature based on my own experience as an old fashioned technical illustrator. I am familiar with the Adobe 'Illustrator' and thought it was not very intuitive. Maybe this feature is still a work in progress - I don't know. In the mean time I suggested having a box for inputting the degree of an ellipse i.e. a 1 degree ellipse would little more that a straight line and a 99 degree would be almost a circle. This way it is easy to use different size ellipse but all having the same proportion. This is important when doing technical illustration.
  20. Can you give me an example?
  21. That's how it has finished up! The programmers won and the artists and designers lost! Yes I know I'm showing my age (78) but wisdom comes with age!
  22. Already got Patallels installed so I can use DP8.
  23. Why do they need to be discussed in different ways to change their appearance? That's like referring to a different way to treat circles from squares or triangles etc. If I draw a shape it may or may not have a line round it depending on what I want.
  24. That's what should have happened to the programmers - they could have learnt a new language! Ideally graphic designers could have learn't programming. Somewhere the two needed to get together.
  25. This strikes a chord with me! Way back when desktop publishing fist started my first reaction to the way it worked was, "This was not designed by graphic designers or graphic artists but by 'programmers' and wasn't intuitive. Did the programmers not call upon graphic designers to help them with the terminology? Also DTP put an end to good design because it brought graphics withing the scope of office girls. This is evident with some of the bizarre creations using all the gizmos offered by the software. If something didn't fit then it got stretched or squashed, including type, until it did. All that has changed is that graphic designers have had to re-learn their trade. Regarding the 'dotted line' point - why are lines referred to as 'strokes' what was wrong with' line'? It is still only one word! You can still this today in some website designs. Doing this easier and faster is not necessarily progress - its a form of dumbing-down.