lepr

I need an 'Opacity' option to set the step value of opacity (for example, 10% or -10%). It would be great if the official could add this option. Does anyone also need this feature? 😁

He came up with that example, because that's what I gave him in way of an explanation.
When using the cusped version, the spiral is formed from straight lines. The partial turn in this case is a percentage of the distance along these straight lines for a single 'turn'. To express this as an angle about a notional centre is less meaningful when the geometry is not an arc.  Using an angle would result in non-linear interpolation of the straight line segments.
Note, a 'turn' is a complete lap around, not a segment or arc.  Since arc angles (or more accurately, the circle divisor angle) can be arbitrary, a turn is determined as being independent of the arc angle for simplicity.  So - you can specify a spiral of 2 turns (a notional rotation of 720 degrees) but then set the arc angle to whatever value gives you the visual result you want.

I think you misunderstood me. There's no pop-up menu on Version 2.2.0 and 2.3.0 when clicking the button, but 2.1.0 has the menu.

This photo manipulation artwork is "Mars Rising". I saw a video of Mars Rising with the moon and it was very impressive. So I made an image by changing the order of the moon and Mars.
 
 
"Mars Rising" speed art : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfo9R5yz-7E
 

The Spiral Tool's Partial Turns field will switch to use percentage if you have enabled 'Use Cusped Segments'.

The app preferences has a control for the placement of new Adjustments. You probably want it set as shown below:

I don't remember - it was years ago when I noticed Merge Curves creates a new object with identity transformation matrix.
 
The new unscaled object that is created by Merge Curves is given the stroke properties of the source object with the lowest position in the stack.
If that source object is being scaled by its transformation matrix and has 'Scale with object' enabled for its stroke, then its apparent stroke width on canvas and in Stroke panel differs from its underlying stroke width. It is the underlying stroke width which is given to the product of Merge Curves.
By the way, the underlying stroke width of an object can be found in Appearance panel.

I don't remember - it was years ago when I noticed Merge Curves creates a new object with identity transformation matrix.
 
The new unscaled object that is created by Merge Curves is given the stroke properties of the source object with the lowest position in the stack.
If that source object is being scaled by its transformation matrix and has 'Scale with object' enabled for its stroke, then its apparent stroke width on canvas and in Stroke panel differs from its underlying stroke width. It is the underlying stroke width which is given to the product of Merge Curves.
By the way, the underlying stroke width of an object can be found in Appearance panel.

The transformation matrix of an object is influencing how the brush texture is mapped onto the path(s) of an object.
If you select your two curves and do Merge Curves then they will be stroked in a matching way, and then you can do Separate Curves if you require them to be separate objects.

Thanks for the video, that looks to be a bit quicker for now, obviously coming from V1 I did not have the shape builder tool so that's a nice new feature. I will give that a go and see how I get on.

The firstdefence selection method gives a selection intensity of the maximum of R, G and B for each pixel. I wouldn't use that method because it can result in a perceptually dark colour being considered as having greater intensity than a perceptually bright colour.
The smadell selection method gives a selection intensity of the perceived brightness (maybe luminosity or maybe luminance or maybe luma or some such measure of "brightness") for each pixel.

Hi All I have logged this to be fixed in a future update.

Yes, position any object above the master tile of the Pattern and then use Merge Down command to incorporate into the Pattern.

The group transformation error has something to do with Artboard location in the document space.
If you first rearrange the Artboards so 'Task Details' has its origin at top left of all, then the subsequent grouping will be performed correctly.
That is proposed as a workaround to help get your project finished. There is a bug to be fixed by the developers.
 

The group transformation error has something to do with Artboard location in the document space.
If you first rearrange the Artboards so 'Task Details' has its origin at top left of all, then the subsequent grouping will be performed correctly.
That is proposed as a workaround to help get your project finished. There is a bug to be fixed by the developers.
 

The group transformation error has something to do with Artboard location in the document space.
If you first rearrange the Artboards so 'Task Details' has its origin at top left of all, then the subsequent grouping will be performed correctly.
That is proposed as a workaround to help get your project finished. There is a bug to be fixed by the developers.
 

Hi all,
The team has been making good progress. I don't have any updates on a release date but please be assured we are not sitting on our haunches - we want to get this feature out as much as you want it out!
Naturally we've been exposing more of the apps' functionality to scripts, but we've been working on plugin-specific technology too. For example, there's a new asynchronous file i/o and networking API, initially driven by the Javascript layer but then we thought it would be good for the lower level C/C++ plugins to have access too. Obviously with local and remote i/o, we've had to be careful that a script isn't covertly sending user data somewhere, so we've introduced a permissions system for Javascript plugins - unless you allow a particular script network access, it won't be able to use the networking API. It may not be a big shiny WOW! feature, but it's important to get these things right.
Anecdotally, I can tell you we've actually used some scripts internally to do some genuinely useful stuff that would have taken literally days to do manually. One script I wrote optimised a document and removed about 60000 layers. There have also been relatively simple layout and alignment tasks that scripts can munch through in the blink of an eye. Last week I wrote a script that split a pixel layer into new pixel layers containing the blocks of grouped pixels. Even the pixel processing was done in the script - I didn't have to rely on the app to do the heavy lifting for me because our performance is good enough to implement DBSCAN in Javascript.
Please be patient. We know you all want scripting available yesterday, but we're getting there!

93.75% is the decay of the radius for one turn of a 4-gon spiral only. It's different for each n-gon.
Instead of explaining how to calculate the per-turn decay for an n-gon spiral, it's easier to tell you to use the per-segment decay option and enter the expression "1-cos(a)", without quote marks and where a is the segment angle.
 

Thanks, got it working now, I didn't click that little per turn icon!

You've used the per-turn decay option. I told you to use the per-segment decay option and the "1 - cos(a)" expression.

93.75% is the decay of the radius for one turn of a 4-gon spiral only. It's different for each n-gon.
Instead of explaining how to calculate the per-turn decay for an n-gon spiral, it's easier to tell you to use the per-segment decay option and enter the expression "1-cos(a)", without quote marks and where a is the segment angle.
 

The segment angle for the spiral is ½ of the exterior angle of the polygon, so that's 180/n, where n is the number of sides of the polygon.

It can, but you'll need to calculate the decay percentage for a given polygon: cusped decaying spirals.afdesign
 

 

Note that the black lines in your document are stroked with Affinity so-called vector brushes which really stretch or repeat a raster image along a path, and so you won't get a purely vector export from it.

No, the parametric shape remains as the basis of the Shape Text, and its controls are available with Node Tool as usual, so the developers could easily provide a means of getting the parametric shape object from a Shape Text without a conversion to Curves.