firstdefence

Hi, jgowrie,
 
I came at this from a different direction. I've been working w. image brushes, but what I've learned so far is not enough yet to let me make a brush that would always give exactly 70 sections of pattern.
I messed w. the problem a few times, trying to find a way to power duplicate the motif in a circle. Ended up making 2 70 section polygons, and drawing the form starting from a shape defined by the 1st section of the outer poly, and extending to over the next in the inner. Then moving the rotation center of the drawn form to the center of the outer poly. Then power duplicating it 5.143 angle X 69.
Had a number of problems. My shape, based on the very pixelated and distorted image you posted didn't work quite right. So I changed the shape to a symbol, so I could tweak the nodes, and get a reasonably even set of sections around the periphery.
Put some fx on the symbol group to make it look a little more photo like.
If you like, examine and use the included file as you like.
RopeBorder.afdesign

@firstdefence As far as I'm concerned, this whole thread is about a render/screen error when two non antialiased pixel edges come together. And a render error can be looked at and hopefully improved on or even fixed. I think @Lee D was, ultimately, right on the money in the very first response (although the first scenario included a feather which, imho, is behaving as it should). When I jumped in it was solely about no feather no AA. That is the only thing I've commented on. Perhaps I led you astray a bit when I suggested you rasterize your oval. I only did that to demonstrate that the coverage map adjustment (which did effectively create a non-aa edge) doesn't stick when translating to pixels. I would be nice if it did. Possibly a feature request?
And yes jagged edges are.... jagged. But, regardless, they should fit together perfectly. Whether or not the look is a legitimate form of expression these days is not for me to judge. Heck, if someone wants to paint with asparagus, more power to 'em . I actually think pixel art is quite popular these days. Even in the 3D world. Affinity thought enough of pixel art to include specific algorithms to help scale them. Different strokes (literally) I guess.
So my final observations are... for non-AA edges coming together: 
AffinityPhoto (1.6.6): at pixel view size (100%) = perfect. Anything above 200% zoom = perfect (or almost perfect.... but I can't seem to get the very faint line again so I'm just gonna say perfect). Anything 200% and below (except for exactly 100%) = artifact.
Photoshop (CS6): Above 63% zoom = perfect. Below 63% = artifact.
Hopefully AP can get better.
(Oh, and this is mostly an annoying screen thing. Exports seem to be fine: png, jpg, tiff etc.... except for pdf's )
Cheers
 
 
 

@mannyc ,
Here is a visual of what @αℓƒяє∂ is saying.  instead if skewing I used Node edit to alter the "shadow" rectangle:

Hi thanks for the advice. I only want to use it with a border as my email signature not when it's printed. It looks a bit odd as a signature I think?
Thanks for your assistance!
Regards
Trevor

I don't think the application is flawed, its the apps way of trying to obtain smooth edges because unless you are a pixel artist nobody wants an obviously pixelated edge, this is the consequence of raster imagery. 
What you want is an invisible transition and no obvious jagged edge but in order for that to happen the jaggedness would have to be interlocking and no smoothing/antialiasing applied this means you are now working in a pixel art workflow and you will not have a smooth line, "Welcome to the 1980's"
For no line to show, every pixel along that jagged edge would have to maintain the interlock, a solid 255 255 255 white edge and 100% Opacity. 
You all seem to want a smooth edge from something that is inherently not smooth, even if a pixel could be dissected into even smaller subpixels the issue still remains but in a smaller form. What you need is a digital angle grinder and a digital sander  
You can't have smoothing in a rasterised world and not have consequences, Even the mighty Photoshop 2018 can't do it and that's before any layers get rasterised, rasterising doesn't make any difference, the only thing I would say is Photoshop makes a slightly neater line.

Rasterised.

 
Personally I think you are flogging a dead horse. Unless some bright spark thinks up a way to apply antialiasing, maintain a smooth edge, full colour and opacity.
Idea: If the Antialiasing could be synchronised so that the pixels overlap and one pixel totals the opacity to 100% and maybe colour correct, that would possibly work, so detect a pixels opacity and place a pixel on the other layer in alignment that sums up the opacity to 100% 
Scenario: One pixel on Layer 1 is part of the antialiasing and has an opacity of 20% the pixel underneath it on layer 2 would correct the shortfall by being 80% opacity, colour correction would have to be handled after that, with the pixels around being used to approximate the colour, or in solid colours apply that colour, I dare bet the opacity would sort that out anyway.

I notice that your trimming is off. You seem to have cut a bit too much off the right hand side 

I think a border would spoil it, as it is, it's a nice clean look, it looks open, fresh and airy, a border would contain it and make it look closed off, sometimes less is more, take some advice from professionals forget the border, you save money and have happy printers 

I don't think the application is flawed, its the apps way of trying to obtain smooth edges because unless you are a pixel artist nobody wants an obviously pixelated edge, this is the consequence of raster imagery. 
What you want is an invisible transition and no obvious jagged edge but in order for that to happen the jaggedness would have to be interlocking and no smoothing/antialiasing applied this means you are now working in a pixel art workflow and you will not have a smooth line, "Welcome to the 1980's"
For no line to show, every pixel along that jagged edge would have to maintain the interlock, a solid 255 255 255 white edge and 100% Opacity. 
You all seem to want a smooth edge from something that is inherently not smooth, even if a pixel could be dissected into even smaller subpixels the issue still remains but in a smaller form. What you need is a digital angle grinder and a digital sander  
You can't have smoothing in a rasterised world and not have consequences, Even the mighty Photoshop 2018 can't do it and that's before any layers get rasterised, rasterising doesn't make any difference, the only thing I would say is Photoshop makes a slightly neater line.

Rasterised.

 
Personally I think you are flogging a dead horse. Unless some bright spark thinks up a way to apply antialiasing, maintain a smooth edge, full colour and opacity.
Idea: If the Antialiasing could be synchronised so that the pixels overlap and one pixel totals the opacity to 100% and maybe colour correct, that would possibly work, so detect a pixels opacity and place a pixel on the other layer in alignment that sums up the opacity to 100% 
Scenario: One pixel on Layer 1 is part of the antialiasing and has an opacity of 20% the pixel underneath it on layer 2 would correct the shortfall by being 80% opacity, colour correction would have to be handled after that, with the pixels around being used to approximate the colour, or in solid colours apply that colour, I dare bet the opacity would sort that out anyway.

Illustrator should have no trouble with a PDF file.
Can you post it, or something with similar design elements?
The thing that is most likely to cause problems is layer effects.

You cannot "fill" the middle of that flower because of the " closed shape". Your close shape is the outline. You will have to Divide this shape first. Select it and Divide it using the boolean tools.  . The last layer in the stack should be the outline. The rest would be the inner parts. 

No line.afdesign

 
This can be opened in AF Photo with the same result.

@Wosven Hannah has sorted her problem and made a slick interface using CSS 

Some relevant links and information that may help others understand and troubleshoot.
https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/coords.html
https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/coords.html
SVG settings on File > Export...
For PDF, SVG and EPS file formats:
Rasterize—select an option for rasterizing design elements which are unsupported by the file format. Select from the pop-up menu: Nothing—no elements within the design are rasterized on export, therefore unsupported elements are not included in the exported file. Everything—all elements within the design are rasterized for a resulting exported file which perfectly matches your original design. Unsupported properties—only unsupported elements are rasterized in the exported file. Downsample images—select whether to downsample raster images within the design. Above—if this set DPI is exceeded by raster design elements, those elements will be rasterized down to this set DPI. This option is dependent on the Downsample images option being active. Use document resolution—ensures the export is the same DPI as the current project's setting. Use DPI—overrides the current project's resolution setting for the export. The exported image's DPI is set using the adjacent input box Allow JPEG compression—when selected, rasterized design elements will be compressed to decrease exported file size. If this option is off, rasterized design elements will be exported as uncompressed. For SVG file format:
Export text as curves—when selected, the text in the resulting file will be drawn as curves (therefore displaying precisely as intended, even if viewed on a device without the used fonts installed). However, this option will increase file size, and text won't be editable as text or available to "text to speech" in other apps. If this option is off, text will be exported as text and the viewing device will need the used fonts installed for it to be viewed correctly. Longer text spans—when selected, text is placed relative to previous lines of text (therefore producing smaller file sizes and simpler file structures). If this option is off, text is placed with absolute coordinates. Use hex colours—when selected, colours in the exported file are expressed as RGB Hex values (therefore reducing file size but less human-readable). If this option is off, colours are exported as standard RGB values. Flatten transforms—when selected, transformed objects are 'fixed' in the exported file. This allows for the file to be viewed more accurately across applications. If this option is off, objects remain dynamically transformed to allow for more flexible editing. Use tile patterns—when selected, rasterized areas may be converted to a vector shape with a filled bitmap to give smoother, sharper edges. However, this might not be supported by some apps. If this option is off, objects will exist as singular elements within the exported file. Set viewBox—when selected, the exported file includes coordinates and dimensions which define the view box of the image. If this option is off, no view box data is included in the exported file. The export area is used to define the view box. Add line breaks—when selected, the code in the exported file will be optimized for human viewing and reading. If this option is off, the image will be exported with code on a single line which will make the file size significantly smaller. For SVG and EPS file formats:
(Use) Relative coordinates—when selected, objects in the exported file have relative positions for maximum editability. If this option is off, object positions are fixed to create a file which is optimized for viewing.  

No line.afdesign

 
This can be opened in AF Photo with the same result.

For example, several browsers support making just the text on a web page larger or smaller without changing the size of its images. (If you are running Safari on a Mac you can try it now on this page via the View menu with the option key pressed or with the keyboard shortcuts option-command-plus & option-command-minus respectively.) Many allow users to set a minimum font size that automatically overrides font sizes smaller than that or a special 'reader' mode that presents only the text elements of some web pages. Just about all of them support user style sheets that can automatically alter the appearance or even remove almost any element of a web page, text included.
Any of these features intended to work on marked up text won't work on images of text so it isn't even necessarily true that "you couldn't tell," even with no interaction other than opening the page.
Beyond that, it should be obvious that web page translation services won't work on images of text, nor will assistive technologies like rollover text-to-speech or output to Braille devices.

Some relevant links and information that may help others understand and troubleshoot.
https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/coords.html
https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/coords.html
SVG settings on File > Export...
For PDF, SVG and EPS file formats:
Rasterize—select an option for rasterizing design elements which are unsupported by the file format. Select from the pop-up menu: Nothing—no elements within the design are rasterized on export, therefore unsupported elements are not included in the exported file. Everything—all elements within the design are rasterized for a resulting exported file which perfectly matches your original design. Unsupported properties—only unsupported elements are rasterized in the exported file. Downsample images—select whether to downsample raster images within the design. Above—if this set DPI is exceeded by raster design elements, those elements will be rasterized down to this set DPI. This option is dependent on the Downsample images option being active. Use document resolution—ensures the export is the same DPI as the current project's setting. Use DPI—overrides the current project's resolution setting for the export. The exported image's DPI is set using the adjacent input box Allow JPEG compression—when selected, rasterized design elements will be compressed to decrease exported file size. If this option is off, rasterized design elements will be exported as uncompressed. For SVG file format:
Export text as curves—when selected, the text in the resulting file will be drawn as curves (therefore displaying precisely as intended, even if viewed on a device without the used fonts installed). However, this option will increase file size, and text won't be editable as text or available to "text to speech" in other apps. If this option is off, text will be exported as text and the viewing device will need the used fonts installed for it to be viewed correctly. Longer text spans—when selected, text is placed relative to previous lines of text (therefore producing smaller file sizes and simpler file structures). If this option is off, text is placed with absolute coordinates. Use hex colours—when selected, colours in the exported file are expressed as RGB Hex values (therefore reducing file size but less human-readable). If this option is off, colours are exported as standard RGB values. Flatten transforms—when selected, transformed objects are 'fixed' in the exported file. This allows for the file to be viewed more accurately across applications. If this option is off, objects remain dynamically transformed to allow for more flexible editing. Use tile patterns—when selected, rasterized areas may be converted to a vector shape with a filled bitmap to give smoother, sharper edges. However, this might not be supported by some apps. If this option is off, objects will exist as singular elements within the exported file. Set viewBox—when selected, the exported file includes coordinates and dimensions which define the view box of the image. If this option is off, no view box data is included in the exported file. The export area is used to define the view box. Add line breaks—when selected, the code in the exported file will be optimized for human viewing and reading. If this option is off, the image will be exported with code on a single line which will make the file size significantly smaller. For SVG and EPS file formats:
(Use) Relative coordinates—when selected, objects in the exported file have relative positions for maximum editability. If this option is off, object positions are fixed to create a file which is optimized for viewing.  

i know that. I am aware that the image of a bird isn't a bird. but what i mean is, that once all the attributes for a text are set and I want to see it, then I have to look at it through a media (a screen or a piece of paper). And there, every program, device, app, browser, printer has a finite amount of dots/pixels per inch to represent the text to me. Those pixels have to decide whether they wanna be white or black or grey. And I say, the baseline of a text is the edge/beginning of all straight characters and I'd like the app to recognize this too and help me out a bit.
By carefully adjusting the size and position of the text in AfP i got   m u c h   b e t t e r    results!
best practice for me was :
1. turn force-pixel-alignment and move-by-whole-pixels on (if the font is well designed that should help Affinity establish a crisp baseline, something that i probably haven't done in the fist place, causing problems that where hard to adjust later on)
2. write a "zZ" with artistic Text tool (baseline should be sharp)
3. turn force-pixel-alignment and move-by-whole-pixels off
4. adjust size (using the top right adjustment corner) until the top of the "zZ" is also crisp
5. turn force-pixel-alignment and move-by-whole-pixels on again and write your text

I finally solved my problem via css: https://www.androphyne.com/spectacles/

If you are designing a website, using images with embedded bitmapped text isn't really the way to go. Take a look at this: https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_css_image_text.asp you will get much better results if you follow this method, its got a learning curve but definitely worth learning.
 
If you have to go the text in an image route, choosing the right font and colour is important.

Your grasp of supply & demand economics may not be quite as good as one might hope for. 
With a flat bottom, they remind me somewhat of McDonald's french fry (chips on your side of the Atlantic?) containers.

You won’t easily get a smooth transition if you draw a separate set of zigzags for each side of the container. You seem to be trying to make the zigzags follow the line of the top of the packaging, but if you look closely at the photo in your original post you’ll see that the curved top cuts through the zigzag pattern. To create the same effect, you just need to fill a rectangle with a regular pattern of zigzag lines, draw the packaging shapes on top, add copies of the shapes to create an outline and then clip the rectangle to that outline shape.

Ive just had a mix around with the HSL settings and it took a bit of fiddling but I got this result.

 
lake view tweaked.afphoto

Ive just had a mix around with the HSL settings and it took a bit of fiddling but I got this result.

 
lake view tweaked.afphoto

No need to make do with just being intrigued! The free version includes the measurement tools, so you can simply log in to your Windoze laptop, go to https://www.tracker-software.com and download it if you want to have a play.