Jump to content

dr_who

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dr_who

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Interestingly enough, expanding round capped strokes works fine over here. I'm on a Mac, though.
  2. Some things may still need to be ironed out. At least the issue is being addressed now.
  3. Yes, yes, YES! Can’t wait to give the new version a spin. If this is indeed the case, it’ll change everything!
  4. Couldn’t agree more! I really feel for the OP. Imagine you’re on a tight deadline, having worked hard the whole day and when you’re finally about to output the deliverable pdf you’re faced with this issue... Yeah, wouldn’t make me laugh either. I love this app to death which is why this thing is really killing me. But you’re right, having a feature at your disposal that is only going to betray you in the end is bordering something I don’t even want to say out loud.
  5. That’s one option but to me, even when tracing a high-res image, the results always seem more or less wonky... Depends highly on what’s being traced, though, and is definitely worth a shot.
  6. If Inkscape supports variable width strokes, maybe export to svg without the width variations and add them in Inkscape using a high-res png as a reference in the background...? Admittedly these workarounds are getting ridiculous but such is the state of affairs currently regarding this area
  7. Well, my workflow was: export to svg in AD > open the svg file in Inkscape, do the conversion from paths to shapes (can’t recall the name of the function off the top of my head but it should be relatively easy to find), save the file > open the file in AD and carry on. But then again, my paths were relatively simple with no width variations and such. They did have rounded corners and caps, though, which seemed to survive the svg exporting just fine.
  8. The malfunctioning expanding of strokes is a long-standing issue that unfortunately saw no improvements in 1.7. It’s a critical flaw keeping a lot of us at bay for now. The only workaround is to resort to 3rd party apps like Inkscape to do the conversion.
  9. I was just about to ask around if 1.7 saw any improvements in this regard but I guess that’d be a resounding ”no.” Sad state of affairs.
  10. +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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. +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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.