Jump to content

dr_who

Members
  • Content count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dr_who

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. +1 Word has it, the snap to grid feat for handles should arrive with 1.7. The most critical issue IMO is the expansion of strokes, however. I haven't found a palatable workaround for it so I've had no choice but to resort to Inkscape for the expansion and then import the expanded stuff back into AD. To me, the expanding of a stroke is as bread and butter as it gets with vector GFX so I really, really hope it's being worked on behind the scenes. I haven't encountered any problems with the boolean tools.
  2. I see. I can live with it but it would really make my day if you'd one day add support for a) pixel sizes for the slices exported in vector formats (SVG, EPS) in AD and b) vector formats in the Batch Job processor in AP. (Which frankly seems a bit odd to me since AP already does support exporting to SVG outside of the batch jobs.) Or at the very least, it'd already help if you could just record the export procedure as a macro in AP. Just my 2 cents.
  3. Hi, is it possible to change the size of SVG-slices (slices that will be exported in SVG format) in pixels? I've noticed that some raster formats such as PNG allow you to define the size of your slices at export in pixels while some other formats, such as SVG, only allow you to define the size in DPI. I've got 130 glyphs sliced up into 1024x1024 slices and I'd need to export them at 1000x1000 px in SVG format. Is there any way to achieve this without resorting to manually resizing each and every one of them individually? Any workarounds? Affinity Photo can open up the 1024x1024 SVG slices and resize them into 1000x1000 but the Batch Job processor doesn't seem to support exporting into SVG.
  4. +1 Happens a lot to me too. Some kind of a "remove doubles" feature akin to what some 3d apps have would be super helpful.
  5. Also, if you're picky about semantics and having an empty pseudo-object in your layer stack annoys you, you could also just move the pixel object to a normal layer and then either lock the object or the layer containing it. Seems to work as well.
  6. Another workaround: just make sure the pixel image you wish to lock isn't the undermost element in your layer stack. Even an empty layer beneath the pixel image will do the trick.
  7. dr_who

    Wonky Expanded Stroke

    This is the most critical issue in AD at the moment, imo. Kind of keeping me at bay as well. Let's hope it gets addressed soon.
  8. I'd like to know, as well. As it stands, this is a colossal problem. 99.9% of the time, I simply can't have my lines wobble on their own, I need them to be consistent. I'd prioritize fixing/improving this above just about everything else. Don't necessarily need all the bells and whistles, but the core tools have to be reliable and of high quality.
  9. Well, at the very least it's something you should be aware of that if you don't expand your strokes prior to exporting to a non-native format, you're going to end up with a massive amount of nodes. And even if you do, your geometry is still not optimal. Can only image what happens if your work is comprised of a lot of small, complex strokes. The worst case scenario is, your only option is to manually redraw the shapes on top of your original strokes. It's truly a sad state of affairs if this is the case.
  10. If you export straight to PDF without expanding the stroke first, it gets worse... Is there any workaround for this? The strokes seem to get converted to shapes regardless of the output format.
  11. I see. I hope they've made it a high priority since it's such a core feature. Somewhere I saw a post claiming it also affects the smoothness of the curvature at small sizes and can be somewhat remedied by scaling the shape up considerably prior to expanding. I have to do more experimenting to see how much of a problem it really is but it does inject the kind of uncertainty into you I'd rather not deal with while trying to concentrate on the artwork itself.
  12. So this is how it's supposed to be (i.e. not a bug)?
  13. An improvement compared to what?
  14. I recently noticed that expanding a stroke results in quite a bit of nodes defining the curvature. I'm wondering if this behavior is intentional or am I doing something wrong? To me, the resulting curvature looks smooth but one'd assume less nodes would be needed for rendering basic circle alike shapes. I realize this may be a redundant inquiry but as I've grown to rely on expanded strokes quite heavily, it'd be good to know if I'm performing the expansion properly and not just making a mess of things.
  15. Glad to hear that, Chris. Is there a thread dedicated to the beta and its developments? This issue aside, after 8 months of active use, I have to say I've been completely blown away by AD.
×