paolo.limoncelli Posted March 10 Posted March 10 Hi there, this is my configuration there is no way to make pixel snapping properly work anymore.. This is the first rectangle This is the second one This is the grouped selection... Also... Snapping is not an integer visually... And Transform panel still reports wrong measures... I suggest to double check this... Some snapping errors while drawing are ok, but Transform panel should correctly report these. Thanks! Paolo Quote DAUB® Brushes making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers
GarryP Posted March 10 Posted March 10 16 minutes ago, paolo.limoncelli said: this is my configuration You have both “Force pixel alignment” and “Move by whole pixels” switched ON. This can sometimes cause problems when one of the layers has a non-integer X/Y position and/or W/H size. I would recommend switching “Move by whole pixels” OFF so it doesn't 'interfere' with "Force pixel alignment". If you are wanting to only snap to the grid then I would suggest making a Preset for just that and switching all the other snapping options OFF in that Preset so you can do that more easily. It seems like the software could be trying to potentially snap to too many things and is ‘getting confused’ as to what you want at any particular time. 16 minutes ago, paolo.limoncelli said: This is the grouped selection... As for why the grouped layers would have a different Y position to the two individual layers, I can’t answer that without being able to look at the document itself to see how it has been constructed. 16 minutes ago, paolo.limoncelli said: Some snapping errors while drawing are ok, but Transform panel should correctly report these. How would the Transform Panel report “snapping errors”? Quote
paolo.limoncelli Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 35 minutes ago, GarryP said: If you are wanting to only snap to the grid then I would suggest making a Preset for just that and switching all the other snapping options OFF in that Preset so you can do that more easily. It seems like the software could be trying to potentially snap to too many things and is ‘getting confused’ as to what you want at any particular time. I want to snap to pixels and regular grid, which are both pixel perfect. I've correctly used these settings in past versions without any issue. In a pixel perfect scenario there is no ambiguity. Move by Whole pixels should be seamless, since I need both... If I snap to pixels while drawing and need to move an object, it goes itself that I need to move by whole pixels. I'd turn it off only if I need sub pixels. What do you suggest in this case? Quote As for why the grouped layers would have a different Y position to the two individual layers, I can’t answer that without being able to look at the document itself to see how it has been constructed. It is constucted as shown... Two simple rectangles, with apparently integer coordinates and sizes... But I've found the issue... Settings were with 1 unit after the point and this was the problem.. Showing up 4 units it reveals the mess... Anyway the precision is still not so precise... 😉 Since when I drew these rectangles... Pixel grid was on... Going to rename this bug. Quote DAUB® Brushes making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers
GarryP Posted March 10 Posted March 10 11 minutes ago, paolo.limoncelli said: I want to snap to pixels and regular grid, which are both pixel perfect. In that case I would recommend making a Preset which only snaps to the grid and the pixel grid. 11 minutes ago, paolo.limoncelli said: Move by Whole pixels should be seamless, since I need both... “Move by Whole Pixels” retains any non-integer position/size information to the right of the decimal place when you drag things and it overrides “Force pixel alignment” in those cases. If you need things to always be aligned with the pixel grid than I would recommend only using “Force pixel alignment”. If your layer has a non-integer pixel position/size then “Move by whole pixels” will retain those decimal values, which doesn’t sound like what you want. 12 minutes ago, paolo.limoncelli said: It is constucted as shown... Two simple rectangles, with apparently integer coordinates and sizes... When there are too many possibilities to intuit the problem from screen-grabs, we need to be able to open the actual document to see how it is constructed. 12 minutes ago, paolo.limoncelli said: Going to rename this bug. I’m not seeing any bugs so far. Quote
paolo.limoncelli Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 5 hours ago, GarryP said: “Move by Whole Pixels” retains any non-integer position/size information to the right of the decimal place when you drag things and it overrides “Force pixel alignment” in those cases. If you need things to always be aligned with the pixel grid than I would recommend only using “Force pixel alignment”. Yes and the problem is that if I manually draw something, the pixel snapping is sometimes faulty even if all remaining snapping option are off... Otherwise all those units should not be there... 😉 5 hours ago, GarryP said: I’m not seeing any bugs so far. Sorry... I do... Let's wait what Staff Members say... 😀 Quote DAUB® Brushes making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers
GarryP Posted March 10 Posted March 10 Once you understand how “Move by whole pixels” and “Force pixel alignment” work together, and sometimes work against each other, you should be able to see that you probably only need to have “Force pixel alignment” switched ON for this kind of work. Once I understood it I’ve never needed to use “Move by whole pixels” and always keep it switched OFF. By doing so, all new layers are given pixel-aligned sizes and positions from the start, and existing layers are given pixel-aligned values once dragged for re-positioning or resizing. pruus 1 Quote
paolo.limoncelli Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 16 minutes ago, GarryP said: By doing so, all new layers are given pixel-aligned sizes and positions from the start, and existing layers are given pixel-aligned values once dragged for re-positioning or resizing. Yes, but this does not always happen in 2.6... I'm experiencing a regression now... Look at the video below... I can clearly see 0.5px with your settings. snappingBug.mp4 I started this file with 2.5 and never had a problem before updating to 2.6... Quote DAUB® Brushes making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers
GarryP Posted March 10 Posted March 10 Thanks for the video but I can’t see what I need to see without being able to inspect the actual document. For instance, is the Artboard pixel-aligned? And what are the grid settings? Quote
paolo.limoncelli Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 Here we go... And the artboard looks aligned... Do you need my ID card too? 😜 🤣 Quote DAUB® Brushes making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers
GarryP Posted March 10 Posted March 10 If you are not going to supply the document as (repeatedly) suggested then I’m going to assume that you don’t want any further help with this. Quote
paolo.limoncelli Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 1 hour ago, GarryP said: If you are not going to supply the document as (repeatedly) suggested then I’m going to assume that you don’t want any further help with this. I appreciate your effort to help, but as said above, I'm pretty sure this is not a matter of workflow or settings. About the document it is under NDA... Cannot share with forum users, sorry for that. Anyway, this is the same (empty) file... sampleGrid.afdesign Quote DAUB® Brushes making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers
GarryP Posted March 10 Posted March 10 Thanks for sharing the document. Unfortunately I’m not seeing the same issue as you – every time I draw a Rectangle (at any zoom level, just in case it mattered) it’s perfectly aligned to the pixel grid with only integer X/Y/W/H values. I’m using Windows though, so maybe it’s a macOS-only thing. Hopefully someone else will be able to come up with something. Quote
lepr Posted March 10 Posted March 10 (edited) 6 hours ago, paolo.limoncelli said: Look at the video below... I can clearly see 0.5px with your settings. The half pixels are correct in your example. Enable Transform Origin (TO) is activated in the context toolbar, and therefore the Transform panel is showing the X and Y values of the TO, not the X and Y values of the top-left corner of the square. The TO of a square is at the square's centre by default, which must be mid-pixel when a 5 px x 5 px square is aligned with the pixel grid. Edited March 10 by lepr grammar paolo.limoncelli and GarryP 2 Quote
paolo.limoncelli Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 11 minutes ago, lepr said: Enable Transform Origin (TO) is activated in the context toolbar, and therefore the Transform panel is showing the X and Y values of the TO, not the X and Y values of the top-left corner of the square. Thank you, didn't noticed this I should left it on while drawing stuff. So my ID card wasn't needed... 😜 Quote DAUB® Brushes making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers
Recommended Posts
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.