Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm unsure whether this has been logged as part of AF-1822 where it isn't possible to apply Set Selection Box after Cycling the Selection Box to Regular Bounds for objects rotated by 90°, 180° and 270°.

The 'workaround' for this bug is to offset these specific angles by .01° to say 89.99° or 90.01°, 179.99° or 180.01° and 269.99° or 270.01. Doing so allows Set Selection Box to be enabled.

The issue, however, is that while using the workaround should allow Make Same: Width and Make Same: Height to function correctly it doesn't, both incorrectly use Base Box instead of Regular Bounds values when enabling 'Set Selection Box'...

Note: This affects both Grouped and Non-Grouped Objects...

Affinity Designer 2.6.3 | Affinity Photo 2.6.3 | Affinity Publisher 2.6.3
MacBook Pro M3 Max, 36 GB Unified Memory, macOS Sonoma 14.6.1, Magic Mouse
HP ENVY x360, 8 GB RAM, AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, Windows 10 Home, Logitech Mouse

Posted

Thanks for your report @Hangman & our apologies for the delay!

On 4/9/2024 at 8:05 AM, Hangman said:

I'm unsure whether this has been logged as part of AF-1822 where it isn't possible to apply Set Selection Box after Cycling the Selection Box to Regular Bounds for objects rotated by 90°, 180° and 270°.

The 'workaround' for this bug is to offset these specific angles by .01° to say 89.99° or 90.01°, 179.99° or 180.01° and 269.99° or 270.01. Doing so allows Set Selection Box to be enabled.

I can see from the internal bug report that it appears our development team have confirmed that the behaviour with 90, 180 & 270 degree rotated objects and Set Section Box is expected, with the following reason:

Quote

"Because, even though the box ‘points’ a different direction, it’s the same box."

However, the bug you're reporting here seems to affect any rotational value that is not 90, 180 & 270 - after using the Set Section Box command.

For example;

  • Draw a rectangle
  • Rotate by 45°
  • Cycle Selection Box
  • Set Selection Box
  • Note the current Height & Width reported in Transform
  • Draw a second rectangle using different size values
  • Select the previously rotated object, then the newly drawn rectangle
  • Make Same: Width
    ⚠Note the Width of the second rectangle does not match that of the rotated Regular Bounds rectangle, the Base Box value is used
  • Make Same: Height
    ⚠Note the Height of the second rectangle does not match that of the rotated Regular Bounds rectangle, the Base Box value is used

I can see arguments for both behaviours here - some users might expect the 'true' width / height of the object to be used, ignoring the rotational value affecting the Regular Bounds transform values however others may expect these Regular Bounds to be used after applying the Set Selection Box command.

Therefore I'm checking this with our development team now as to their expected behaviour and will log this as a bug as required - once I have further information from our team I'll be sure to share this here :)

Posted

Hi @Dan C,

I'd be interested to know the expected behaviour, I assume it will be as it currently is...

I can certainly see arguments for both behaviours as well, maybe there could/should be an additional selectable option in the Alignment Panel for 'Relative to Regular Bounds' which when unchecked exhibits the current behaviour and when checked 'Make Same: Width' and 'Make Same: Height is based on the Regular Bounds of the first selected item... :)

Affinity Designer 2.6.3 | Affinity Photo 2.6.3 | Affinity Publisher 2.6.3
MacBook Pro M3 Max, 36 GB Unified Memory, macOS Sonoma 14.6.1, Magic Mouse
HP ENVY x360, 8 GB RAM, AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, Windows 10 Home, Logitech Mouse

Posted

How can it be the same box if the points are in a different order? And pressing . has a very important effect, it changes the rotation of a rectangle to 0° and puts the width and height input fields to the visually correct meaning again. Ctrl+. would persist those changes, but refuses to do so in these simple cases. I don't get that. Is there any reason why this has been deliberately disabled for that very useful use case? I mean, disabling just because devs think it's useless when proven otherwise isn't user friendly, is it?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.