jackamus

Well said! This is going to be a difficult criticism to refute!

I have had a quick look at VectorStyler and I think you may be right. I will check it out further.

Hooray! With the extra resources now available to Serif perhaps the developers will be able to stop the nodes and handles of object disappearing when you move a guide and also develop a perspective drawing feature.

Hooray! With the extra resources now available to Serif perhaps the developers will be able to stop the nodes and handles of object disappearing when you move a guide and also develop a perspective drawing feature.

Hooray! With the extra resources now available to Serif perhaps the developers will be able to stop the nodes and handles of object disappearing when you move a guide and also develop a perspective drawing feature.

Is there a quick way to reverse the order of layers?

I am requesting locking/pinning nodes as a new feature.

I hadn't formally requested any kind of new feature - I was just finding out what might be possible.
I will now request it to the dustbin of 'New Features'.

Very sensible reply!
Because I wanted to draw something that wads very small the pixel resolution was not too low. So I checked the document 'Scale' and tried !0:1 and then !:10. I:10 did the trick although it was not exactly what I wanted. At this scale in order to draw a shape 1cm square I had to draw it 10cm square.
What I was looking for was to draw it, using the transform tab, 1cm square but for AD2 to show it at 10cm. This would mean that I would have the higher pixel resolution but drawing using actual real dimensions.

Very sensible reply!
Because I wanted to draw something that wads very small the pixel resolution was not too low. So I checked the document 'Scale' and tried !0:1 and then !:10. I:10 did the trick although it was not exactly what I wanted. At this scale in order to draw a shape 1cm square I had to draw it 10cm square.
What I was looking for was to draw it, using the transform tab, 1cm square but for AD2 to show it at 10cm. This would mean that I would have the higher pixel resolution but drawing using actual real dimensions.

As I have said many times before the guide could snap to any other near node out of view on the screen. Simply constantly change the snapping setting to avoid this is teious in the extreme!

Is that what they mean when I get called an 'Old fossil'?

Is that what they mean when I get called an 'Old fossil'?

LOL I changed my 2nd monitor to 'Mirror' my main monitor and all the pallets and tabs appeared on my main monitor. I then was able to load Quick FX which when it appeared was way higher up the screen than all the others. I dragged it down to line up with the others. Next I removed the 'Mirror' setting and dragged everything back to the 2nd monitor. Everything is now OK.
The original problem with Quick FX was that it was too high up the screen and therefore impossible to move. Was this the reported bug?
 
even have the lower part of the QuickFX panel - just a large black rectangle. Do you know what the situation regarding fixing the proble,

By popular demand I have made my screen shots into jpegs. 
There are 2 screen shots because I use 2 monitors - one for the work area and the other with all the tabs.

Yes I suppose I could have done but why would I not expect a second line to do the same thing? I tried deselecting and re-selecting several times but to no avail.
I suppose its to do with whether I think AD is reliable enough or not.
However next time I will repeat ,whatever it is I'm having a problem with, several times to give AD the benefit of the doubt.

LOL I wish I thought of that response!

Thank you Walt. I've changed my snapping options as you suggested.
 

This is exactly what I've been saying for years about why bounding box handles disappear when moving a guide. There just seems to be no reason to do it.

With respect Walt, that's a pretty lame excuse! I get the impression that the developers live in a world of their own with only minimal acknowledgement to users needs.

My answer to a list getting longer because of newer standard sizes and then improved it by removing that which previous was needed but now has become superfluous, is 'rationalization'. This is not the same as removing something that was previously needed. I can understand rationalizing a list of paper sizes that include sizes which are considered no longer standard. 'Foolscap' being a good example.

I'm sure there are several work-arounds but why are they necessary in the first place? Who made the decision to change it for ADV2 and why?

Well said.
However I do understand how a thread can get very frayed at the ends. Although I was satisfied with the video there were others who had an opinion and that's OK
If starting this thread has helped others then the forum is doing its job. Many thanks to all who contributed.

Well said.
However I do understand how a thread can get very frayed at the ends. Although I was satisfied with the video there were others who had an opinion and that's OK
If starting this thread has helped others then the forum is doing its job. Many thanks to all who contributed.

Well said.
However I do understand how a thread can get very frayed at the ends. Although I was satisfied with the video there were others who had an opinion and that's OK
If starting this thread has helped others then the forum is doing its job. Many thanks to all who contributed.