Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

rnbutler87

Members
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rnbutler87

  1. Thank you, that’s a good call I’ll give that a try for future designs Thank you, yes this would be ideal to have styles like this, hopefully affinity implements something like this!
  2. Hi, Please see the video for a better description of what I mean. https://www.loom.com/share/9f45690b749843728a3584690db2ebdb Basically, I thought this was a bug a few years ago when I started using Affinity Designer and I posted on this forum but the response was that this is by design. But I've just done another book with tens and tens of characters. And it is SOO hard to change the stroke weight of all the characters because all the nested shapes are not affected. It is simply not feasible to go in to each instance of a character and drill down, change the lineweight of the nested shapes every time. Characters need to have variable line weights so that they can be placed in different scenes and make sure their line weights are appropriate for the context. And the reason that I nest shapes inside other shapes instead is for economical reason. For example, if I want to make slight adjustments to characters, in a turnaround for example, I can just move the internal shapes around to create a slightly different angle on the character, for example front, front 3/4 and side angles. Nesting shapes in their parent shapes means you don't have to mess around with masks. If the parent shape changes, you have to make sure that the mask is also changed. It would just be so much simpler, quicker and make production so much more efficient if nested shapes were able to have their stroke changed with the parent. PLEASE can you make a tick box or something to have stroke width affect all nested shapes, just like there is a tick box for 'Lock Children' when scaling I would be eternally grateful. Many thanks.
  3. *Moved to affinity designer for desktop forum* Hi, Please see the video for a better description of what I mean. https://www.loom.com/share/9f45690b749843728a3584690db2ebdb Basically, I thought this was a bug a few years ago when I started using Affinity Designer and I posted on this forum but the response was that this is by design. But I've just done another book with tens and tens of characters. And it is SOO hard to change the stroke weight of all the characters because all the nested shapes are not affected. It is simply not feasible to go in to each instance of a character and drill down, change the lineweight of the nested shapes every time. Characters need to have variable line weights so that they can be placed in different scenes and make sure their line weights are appropriate for the context. And the reason that I nest shapes inside other shapes instead is for economical reason. For example, if I want to make slight adjustments to characters, in a turnaround for example, I can just move the internal shapes around to create a slightly different angle on the character, for example front, front 3/4 and side angles. Nesting shapes in their parent shapes means you don't have to mess around with masks. If the parent shape changes, you have to make sure that the mask is also changed. It would just be so much simpler, quicker and make production so much more efficient if nested shapes were able to have their stroke changed with the parent. PLEASE can you make a tick box or something to have stroke width affect all nested shapes, just like there is a tick box for 'Lock Children' when scaling I would be eternally grateful. Many thanks.
  4. Did a whole project and rely heavily on being able to select a group and change all the constituent layers fills in a single go, it's great. However, I've discovered that if I a pixel layer is present, a massive white square gets drawn instead. Take a look at the video: https://www.loom.com/share/f18d617e54b44c97b915a5ced16f8a8d It would be great if it just ignored the pixel layers (as they're mostly they're just as preliminary sketches) Let me know if this is a bug or intended functionality. Thanks.
  5. If I extend the artboard, the current pixel layer I'm drawing on doesn't draw past the bounds on one edge. However, if I make a new pixel layer, it seems to draw correctly... Take a look at the video: https://www.loom.com/share/c3abed59934243ffbd05641546236997 Running the latest beta version.
  6. I have a group containing artboards. If I make an artboard from a layer outside that group and then drag that artboard inside the group, everything works as expected. However, if the layer artwork is already inside the group containing the artboards and then I make an artboard from the selected layer, it goes a bit skew wiff - seems to make an artboard out of the whole group, rather than the selected layer... See the video: https://www.loom.com/share/b4d89134a3ae4b66be528bd4c76c3bac
  7. Attached is 2 screen shots, one showing the editor and one showing the export: In the PDF export, the pig, which is vector, the colours appear the same. But the animal prints and bullet points, which are pixel data, are appearing darker. I don't know if this is just a coincidence but I suspect not. Document colour format: CMYK/8 Document colour profile: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 PDF Export: PDF (for print) and the colour space and profile are set to use the documents space and profile. Attached are the files and the export. This has been annoying me for a while so I'd love to get to the bottom of it. Many thanks. Richard pig.afdesign pig-export.pdf
  8. Hi, thanks. Here is the file and palette: CK_palette-issue.afdesign UNIVERSAL-palette.afpalette
  9. Hi, I've already posted on this but thought I would again with confidence that I've not missed anything from the suggestions given last time. I also have updated to the latest beta since posting on this last, in which I seem to remember reading in the release notes there was a fix regarding the positioning of artboards (which was perhaps one of the problems last time) Anyway, as you can see in the video, I've got 4 icons, all sat on whole pixels and all whole pixels in width and height. But when I create slices out of them all, the slices all appear different sizes. And not just one pixel out in some cases (which would suggest a rounding error or hidden decimal places on the positioning or width and height) but 4px on one of the icons. It's very strange. Below is the video showing this as well as the file: https://www.loom.com/share/5a315b2305c54881903b0bd76224e637 SYL_assets_master2.afdesign
  10. Hi, I exported this palette...: ... in to another document and it appeared in reverse order, like this: I don't want to sort either of the palettes by alphabetical or by colour, I want them in the order I created them (being able to change their order manually would be great) But more than anything, all the swatches are named in the original palette but only some of them are named in the subsequently imported one. About half of the swatches have just come in with Global Colour [number] which is odd...
  11. Recreation of problem: A group with visible and hidden layers Duplicate this group via CMD + J In the new (duplicated) group, turn on one of the hidden layers Invoke the transform handles for the group The transform handles don't recognise the new size of the group with the incorporated hidden layer visibility. They only seem to transform the bounds of the original size of the group based on the visible layers before duplication. See the video for more clarity: https://www.loom.com/share/dc106a51978a42abbf56c7e718de3647
  12. Very sure! The potential of the export persona is fantastic but I do find it a bit finicky at the moment, mainly to do with this topic of precision export and especially in documents that aren't pixel based (e.g. mm or cm) And solving the problem does sound complicated and I can't say I entirely understand but what I'm taking away is you're working on it, which is satisfying. Many thanks.
  13. This is strange. I'll keep trying to drag it around... This also seems strange... Hopefully a future update will make this a more consistent, intuitive process
  14. Hi, I've now uploaded these files. The image copies OK into a new document. But appears blank when I copy it from CK_dinosaur-landing-page_book to CK_farm-animals_covers2 The image is the one in the repeating pattern in the symbol duplicated for the background. Thanks.
  15. Hi, as the title says, when I copy this image from one document to another, it appears 'blank'. The layer thumbnail looks a bit dodge too, like with very thin bars, like it's corrupt or something. Very strange but hopefully watching the video will explain. https://www.loom.com/share/884deccf5b6f4a5798f579a0556321cf
  16. Thank you, this has fixed the issue. Many thanks! Actually this has sort of fixed the problem, in that the artboard fits better, but not exact still. It is making an artboard 90x91 and even when trying to snap it to the bounds of the artboard it just won't, and keeps cropping the artwork. Is this because of what you mentioned about not being able to see if the board is exactly on a whole pixel because of the decimals not showing? These slice problems are quite annoying, especially when creating print artwork using something other than pixel dimensions (e.g. mm or cm) When I want to export slices, I have to change the document to pixels, and then try and get the slices to work. Indeed, they are more accurate but still not exact, as experiences yet again here. Thanks for the responses so far.
  17. Hi Walt, thanks for the reply. I've increased it to 3 decimal places but it everything is still on whole pixels... PS attached is the design file. ck_website3.afdesign
  18. Hi, I'm finding that slices don't fit correctly. I've ensured that the artboard is sized to whole pixels and the artwork is whole pixels. But when creating a slice, it doesn't line up. See the video: https://www.loom.com/share/3e052617227d450997ab1b6dce989fea Any help greatly appreciated. PS, I've found this happens quite a lot when making slices. Often I can get around it by just making the slice a bit bigger. But for items I want consistent sizing and positioning across similar icons for example, it's frustrating.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. 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.