Is it possible to cut out in a non-destructive approach?

[sbe]

I'm stuck with this right now. How can I create a vector mask in Affinity Designer or Publisher that will punch something out? Similar to Operations → Subtract, but non-destructive? The Blend-Mode "Erase" doesn't help because I want the background image to show through:

 

[GarryP]

Have you tried using the Compound functionality?
Search for “compound” (without the quotes) in the Help for more information.

[G13RL]

@sbe, your idea of using the "Erase" mode was good. Just group the circle and the small square before applying this mode to the circle.

[iconoclast]

The subtraction in your screenshot isn't really destructive, because you only need to select the nodes of the inner circle with the Node-Tool and delete it to get rid of it. If you want the inner circle to be transparent and the outer shape still opaque, you can click on the geometry-option "Divide" instead of "Subtract", and you will get the inner circle as a cutted out shape on a seperate layer. Then you can reduce the opacity of only this layer to get the background shining through a little.

[G13RL]

To go in the direction of @iconoclast, you can always move the hole (the now transparent circle) after "Substract": select the nodes of the circle with "Node Tool", move the circle by pulling it by one of the nodes".

[iconoclast]

28 minutes ago, G13RL said:

To go in the direction of @iconoclast, you can always move the hole (the now transparent circle) after "Substract": select the nodes of the circle with "Node Tool", move the circle by pulling it by one of the nodes".

But as I detected a moment ago, it doesn't seem to work. Even I think it should.

If I create a shape and another one above inside of the dimensions of the lower one, the upper shape gets duplicated, but nothing is seperated from the low one. It works well if the upper shape overlaps the edge of the low one. Am I somehow wrong or is this a bug?

[PixelPest]

[G13RL]

@iconoclast,I don't have this behavior (with Windows).

Substract.wmv

[iconoclast]

9 minutes ago, G13RL said:

@iconoclast,I don't have this behavior (with Windows).

Substract.wmv 910.23 kB · 0 downloads

Yes, that works for me too. But I meant: create this blue rectangle, create this yellow circle above it inside of the dimensions of the rectangle (as you did) and Divide them from each other. That only seems to work if the circle ocerlaps the edge of the rectangle.

Edit: I checked this out in Inkscape, and it works there.

[PixelPest]

Blue? Divide? 🤔

[iconoclast]

Just now, PixelPest said:

Blue? Divide? 🤔

I related to G13RL's video.

[PixelPest]

Don´t Divide nor Subtract just Layer->Geometry->Merge curves!

[iconoclast]

4 minutes ago, PixelPest said:

Don´t Divide nor Subtract just Layer->Geometry->Merge curves!

Hm, that seems to do the same as Substract does.

Think I have to explain. I thought that the OP possibly wanted to cut out a shape in the middle of another shape, but wanted to keep the inner shape for making it transparent. Like a windowpane. - That would also have been somehow nondestructive, because the shapes could have been added together easily. I thought "Divide" would do that, and in Inkscape in fact it does. But in Designer it doesn't as it seems.

[PixelPest]

No - it´s not the same:

[PixelPest]

5 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

I thought "Divide" would do that, and in Inkscape in fact it does.

Nope; there is "Difference" what is subtract in AD and "Division" will punch a hole and leaves the punching object alive.

[iconoclast]

4 minutes ago, PixelPest said:

No - it´s not the same:

Ah, I  see, it's interesting. But as I said, not what I intended. Anyway, thanks again for the good hints!

[PixelPest]

Gerne.

[uneMule]

Pour rejoindre @GarryP, un tracé composé est une solution très souple et pratique.

To join @GarryP, a compound path is a very flexible and practical solution.

[iconoclast]

1 minute ago, uneMule said:

Pour rejoindre @GarryP, un tracé composé est une solution très souple et pratique.

To join @GarryP, a compound path is a very flexible and practical solution.

Absolutely, I love it. And it may make my question above, about the "Devide"-option, somehow obsolete. But shouldn't "Devide" normally do what I said?

[lacerto]

(...)

 

[PixelPest]

11 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

But shouldn't "Devide" normally do what I said?

Actually it does this:

[iconoclast]

3 hours ago, PixelPest said:

Actually it does this:

OK, I already said that: I know that you can divide at the edge of the object on the layer below. But normally - as far as I know it - it should also be possible to position a Curve-Object in the middle on top of another Curve-Object and Divide them from each other with just one click on "Divide". And as result, you should have two Curve-Objects after this click: the one below with a hole where the one on top is cutted out, and the one you cutted out on the place where the hole is. That's what is at least possible in Inkscape and I think also in Illustrator and CorelDraw but not in Designer as it seems. Might be no bigger thing, because there seem to be alternatives, but it also might be a bug that could be possibly disturbing in some case.  At least for beginners. That is the only reason why I am worrying about this. I'm not sure if it is really worth talking about, because of the alternatives, but possibly it is.

[Alfred]

22 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

And as result, you should have two Curve-Objects after this click: the one below with a hole where the one on top is cutted out, and the one you cutted out on the place where the hole is.

You can’t have a ‘Curve’ object with a hole. There has to be a separate path for the hole, so the result is always going to be a ‘Curves’ object.

[uneMule]

Peut-être faut-il séparer les opérations booléennes (réunion, intersection, exclusion, ou...) qui peuvent générer des objets composés,  des autre opérations (diviser, contour...) dont le but est de générer de nouveaux objets (donc forcément de modifier les objets sur lesquels on effectue l'opération).

*****

Perhaps it is necessary to separate Boolean operations (join, intersect, exclude, or...) which can generate compound objects, from other operations (divide, contour...) whose aim is to generate new objects (thus necessarily to modify the objects on which one carries out the operation).

[iconoclast]

55 minutes ago, Alfred said:

You can’t have a ‘Curve’ object with a hole. There has to be a separate path for the hole, so the result is always going to be a ‘Curves’ object.

That is what I mean with "Hole". I know that it needs another curve for it, but the result is a curve object with a hole. Here you can see how it works in Inkscape. With only one operation.