Addition of grouped rounded rectangles doesn't work on Affinity Designer v2.5.7

[casio4ever]

As You Can See In My Attached Video, After Grouping Multiple Rounded Rectangles, Applying Geometry (Add) To The Whole Group Doesn't Work As It Should.

Edited January 18 by casio4ever

[GarryP]

Welcome to the forums @casio4ever

I’ve just tried the same sort of thing thing and it worked for me.

Are you sure that there are no vertical spaces, even tiny ones, between the shapes?

If you can share the document (maybe a cut-down version containing just those rounded rectangles) then we can look at it.

[casio4ever]

Just now, GarryP said:

Welcome to the forums @casio4ever

I’ve just tried the same sort of thing thing and it worked for me.

Are you sure that there are no vertical spaces, even tiny ones, between the shapes?

If you can share the document (maybe a cut-down version containing just those rounded rectangles) then we can look at it.

All Shapes Were Drawn Using Maximum Restricted Snapping Options (Look Beside Magnet Tools)

[GarryP]

Snapping isn’t always 100% accurate under certain conditions.

I remember seeing a similar problem before but we need to know, for sure, how the document is constructed before we can start to figure out what the problem could be.

If you can share the document as suggested then we can look into it further.

[casio4ever]

9 minutes ago, GarryP said:

Snapping isn’t always 100% accurate under certain conditions.

I remember seeing a similar problem before but we need to know, for sure, how the document is constructed before we can start to figure out what the problem could be.

If you can share the document as suggested then we can look into it further.

The Solution Was So Simple, I Had To Delete The Latest Two Rectangles (From The Bottom), Then Copied The First Two Rectangles, Moved Them To The Bottom, Flipped Them Vertically, Performing Geometry (Add), Voila!.

The Solution Proves Your Words, Snapping Needs To Be Repaired...

Edited January 18 by casio4ever

[Komatös]

4 minutes ago, casio4ever said:

The Solution Was So Simple

You could have simply zoomed into the compound object without the layer being active, then you would have seen the gap and only had to ungroup, and reposition the two objects below.

[GarryP]

16 minutes ago, casio4ever said:

All Shapes Were Drawn Using Maximum Restricted Snapping Options (Look Beside Magnet Tools)

If there are other layers in the document which can be snapped to, depending on their positions/sizes and your snapping settings, the snapping functionality can sometimes not select the same ‘candidates’ as you might think it should.

I’m not sure what you mean by “Maximum Restricted Snapping Options”, and couldn’t see them in the video, but setting all of the settings to be ON all of the time can lead to this kind of situation where there are too many snapping ‘candidates’.

[casio4ever]

1 minute ago, Komatös said:

You could have simply zoomed into the compound object without the layer being active, then you would have seen the gap and only had to ungroup, and reposition the two objects below.

Can You Explain Further With Videos or GIFs ?

[casio4ever]

2 minutes ago, GarryP said:

If there are other layers in the document which can be snapped to, depending on their positions/sizes and your snapping settings, the snapping functionality can sometimes not select the same ‘candidates’ as you might think it should.

I’m not sure what you mean by “Maximum Restricted Snapping Options”, and couldn’t see them in the video, but setting all of the settings to be ON all of the time can lead to this kind of situation where there are too many snapping ‘candidates’.

Snapping Candidates Doesn't Exceed The Number Of Rectangles ... (Snapping Options Provided Below)

[GarryP]

I think you might have too many snapping options set to ON, even when you are using the Candidates List, but it’s difficult to tell without more experimentation.

We need to see the document itself so we can check the relative vertical distances, if any, between the shapes.

[casio4ever]

7 minutes ago, GarryP said:

I think you might have too many snapping options set to ON, even when you are using the Candidates List, but it’s difficult to tell without more experimentation.

We need to see the document itself so we can check the relative vertical distances, if any, between the shapes.

Sorry, My Workplace Refused To Provide The Document For Investigation. Thus, I Provided The Video Which May Helps In Problem Reproduction Scenarios.

Edited January 18 by casio4ever

[GarryP]

I can understand you not being able to share the document. (I’m not sure why you can’t share a cut-down version of it but that’s okay.)

All I would be doing to check for gaps would be to*, look at the Y-position and height of the bottom shape and then check to see if the next shape up has a Y-position which matched exactly to the Y-position+height of the shape below, and then doing the same for each shape up the design.

Even this might not show a discrepancy if the gap was really, really small though.

With this sort of thing it’s sometimes quicker, as you have seen, to draw the thing again rather than try and see what’s wrong.

* With the "Decimal Places for Unit Types", for whatever UOM your document is using, set has high as possible in Settings / User Interface.

[casio4ever]

9 hours ago, GarryP said:

I can understand you not being able to share the document. (I’m not sure why you can’t share a cut-down version of it but that’s okay.)

All I would be doing to check for gaps would be to*, look at the Y-position and height of the bottom shape and then check to see if the next shape up has a Y-position which matched exactly to the Y-position+height of the shape below, and then doing the same for each shape up the design.

Even this might not show a discrepancy if the gap was really, really small though.

With this sort of thing it’s sometimes quicker, as you have seen, to draw the thing again rather than try and see what’s wrong.

* With the "Decimal Places for Unit Types", for whatever UOM your document is using, set has high as possible in Settings / User Interface.

Speaking Of Gaps, Would You Please Adjust Panel Behaviors to Eliminate Any Gaps Between Them ?. I'd Be Grateful If Serif Added The Ability To Export Studio Presets Too.

Edited January 18 by casio4ever

[PaulEC]

Try unticking "Move by whole pixels". (But keep "Force pixel alignment" ticked.)

[Komatös]

2 hours ago, casio4ever said:

Can You Explain Further With Videos or GIFs ?

Shure! But I trust that you are able to undo the merging, zoom in on the two lower shapes and then move them up by one pixel.

 

 

[GarryP]

2 hours ago, casio4ever said:

Would You Please Adjust Panel Behaviors to Eliminate Any Gaps Between Them ?

I can’t do anything about that as I don’t work for Serif, but you can add a suggestion to the appropriate section of the forums.

2 hours ago, casio4ever said:

I'd Be Grateful If Serif Added The Ability To Export Studio Presets Too.

That has already been requested, for example: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/184459-feature-suggestion-studio-present-manager-export-load/

[casio4ever]

4 hours ago, GarryP said:

I can’t do anything about that as I don’t work for Serif, but you can add a suggestion to the appropriate section of the forums.

Done !

4 hours ago, GarryP said:

That has already been requested, for example: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/184459-feature-suggestion-studio-present-manager-export-load/

For Windows Version 2.5.7 This Is The Only Available Options, No Export Options Available :

Edited January 18 by casio4ever

[casio4ever]

2 hours ago, PaulEC said:

Try unticking "Move by whole pixels". (But keep "Force pixel alignment" ticked.)

Please Explain The Difference With & Without "Move by whole pixels" ?

[PaulEC]

This is from the Photo Help, but it's the same in Designer:

https://affinity.help/photo2/en-US.lproj/index.html?page=pages/DesignAids/pixelAlign.html&title=Force Pixel Alignment