Designer renders curve points differently based on zoom

[qantravon]

Some sharp corners are rendering at a different "pointy-ness" depending on how close I zoom. The difference is quite dramatic, and can change how the design looks significantly.

I have build 1.10.6.1665

 

[Pšenda]

Try set Mitre. 

https://affinity.help/designer/English.lproj/pages/Panels/strokePanel.html

[GarryP]

1 hour ago, Pšenda said:

Try set Mitre. 

I don’t think the ‘fix’ for this should be setting the Mitre value differently as the rendered result should look the same at different zoom levels no matter what the Mitre value is set to.

Otherwise we would have to set the Mitre value differently at different zoom levels just to see how the design looks, which would be a terrible situation.

-----

Welcome to the forums @qantravon

Development of the V1 software has, for the most part, ceased and as such you should probably not expect anything to improve regarding this particular problem in V1.

[Pšenda]

4 hours ago, GarryP said:

I don’t think the ‘fix’ for this should be setting the Mitre value differently as the rendered result should look the same at different zoom levels no matter what the Mitre value is set to.

Otherwise we would have to set the Mitre value differently at different zoom levels just to see how the design looks, which would be a terrible situation.

Nowhere do I claim that the Miter setting will affect the corner display for different zooms. I'm just pointing out to the OP that this parameter can affect how the corners are rendered, which will affect - how his design will look.

Edited February 8 by Pšenda
Corrected incorrect wording from the Translator.

[NathanC]

Welcome to the forums @qantravon,

If you could provide a copy or a portion of the document we can confirm if the problem can be replicated within V2, along with if there are any potential workarounds in V1. 

Many thanks

[GarryP]

Pšenda: The OP demonstrated that their design looked different at different zoom levels.

You suggested: “Try set Mitre.”

I explained that setting the Mitre value probably isn’t a ‘fix’ for the problem, and then explained why it wouldn't be a 'fix', without saying that you thought it would be.

You then suggested that: “the OP is pointing out this [Mitre] parameter…”, which they didn’t do; they never mentioned Mitre at all, not in the title, or the tags, or the text.

So now I’m wondering whether you are reading what I am reading.

[Pšenda]

32 minutes ago, GarryP said:

without saying that you thought it would be.

If you are writing your post as an "explicit" response to my post, then it is quite obvious that you are responding directly to it. If you just want to follow up on my post (the information in it), you need to state it in the response - for example, I solve it with a joining ellipsis "..." so that it is immediately clear to everyone what type of response it is.

 

40 minutes ago, GarryP said:

“the OP is pointing out this [Mitre] parameter…”

I fixed it - the incorrect wording unfortunately arose from the poor quality of the translation in the Translator.
Thanks for notice.

[GarryP]

I think we’re getting ‘off track’ here and I can’t be bothered to further argue over this sort ‘who was thinking of what when they said that and what they meant by it’ discussion.

Basically, setting the Mitre value is probably not a ‘fix’ for the problem as posted by the OP.

If the OP posts a document which exhibits the problem then the staff, or anyone else, can have a look at it and perhaps suggest what to do next.

[Pšenda]

1 hour ago, GarryP said:

Basically, setting the Mitre value is probably not a ‘fix’ for the problem as posted by the OP.

It's definitely not, and the mention of him (about Mitre) was never intended that way.

 

Edit: Another explanation for the OP, why I mentioned the possibility of adjusting the Miter parameter.

In your screenshot, it seems to me that the corner in question (which changes depending on the zoom) is kind of weird/wrong because it doesn't follow/match the surrounding curves. I would expect the corner to be more pointed, and to be stretched more to match the shape of the adjacent curves (see illustration).

His incorrect shape (in my opinion) is caused by the node not being in the right position, and his handle being too much to the side.

That's why I thought that you somehow compensate the inappropriate shape of the corner with an incorrectly (small) set Miter parameter, where increasing its value it could help.

Edited February 8 by Pšenda