"Symmetrical" Object, is not. Tearing my hair out.

[Jeithorpe]

Good day everyone!

I was using Illustrator sporadically until Adobe invented software-as-a-service.

Then went to Inkscape.  Also sporadically.

When I discovered Affinity Designer 2 last year, I jumped on, and I love this program.

I'm still learning, every day, and constantly working on projects.  One thing I've always wanted to do, and now I need to, is to create a geometric object and turn it into a repeating pattern.

So, I've got this tri-star object which looks symmetrical, but it's slightly off.  Not sure what I did, but if you flip it on the horizontal axis, it shifts.

I've looked at the forums and found a lot about symmetry, but nothing on how to fix this particular issue.

Could anyone please help??  Remember, I'm really just beginning to really learn this program.

Thanks in advance!!!!  -Jei

Japanese_Tri_Star_MASTER.afdesign Japanese_Tri_Star_MASTER.svg

[Oufti]

2 hours ago, Jeithorpe said:

I've got this tri-star object which looks symmetrical, but it's slightly off.  Not sure what I did, but if you flip it on the horizontal axis, it shifts.

The problem is here:

I would redraw it, because correcting this seems to me more difficult than doing it right at once. Use of snapping and mirroring takes some trial and error, but finally proves to be helpful. 

 

[Oufti]

P.S. If it helps, I once tried something similar that I explained here, when it was still fresh to my mind…

 

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, Jeithorpe said:

So, I've got this tri-star object which looks symmetrical, but it's slightly off.  Not sure what I did, but if you flip it on the horizontal axis, it shifts.

When viewing the SVG, it appears that the object wasn't created with the required precision. For example, vertical edges aren't completely vertical, the top center point isn't in the center of the object and different angles of oblique edges lead to non-parallel lines.

[Jeithorpe]

1 hour ago, Oufti said:

P.S. If it helps, I once tried something similar that I explained here, when it was still fresh to my mind…

 

Thank you!  I'll take a look!

[Jeithorpe]

42 minutes ago, thomaso said:

When viewing the SVG, it appears that the object wasn't created with the required precision. For example, vertical edges aren't completely vertical, the top center point isn't in the center of the object and different angles of oblique edges lead to non-parallel lines.

Thank you!
Yes.  I created it with the Square Star Tool, but to get the points, I converted to curves.  I must have done something wrong that I can't seem to recover from.  Due to limitation in the degrees of rotation, I just can't get it perfect.

Do you have any tips on how to create this starting from scratch?  Thanks again!

[Jeithorpe]

1 hour ago, Oufti said:

The problem is here:

I would redraw it, because correcting this seems to me more difficult than doing it right at once. Use of snapping and mirroring takes some trial and error, but finally proves to be helpful. 

 

Thank you!
Yes.  I created it with the Square Star Tool, but to get the points, I converted to curves.  I must have done something wrong that I can't seem to recover from.  Due to limitation in the degrees of rotation, I just can't get it perfect.

Do you have any tips on how to create this starting from scratch?  Thanks again!

[thomaso]

20 minutes ago, Jeithorpe said:

Due to limitation in the degrees of rotation, I just can't get it perfect.

What limitation do you mean? And what rotation at all? – I guess I'd start with a hexagon. Possibly it helps to define a desired/ the required grid first. It also may help to use the button "Cycle Selection box" (base/regular bounds) in the Context Toolbar. And zoom in for more precision.

As workaround – e.g. if the previous calculation of lengths or angles isn't 100% perfect – a last option might be to convert to curves + move nodes to match the required edges. But once you start moving individual nodes, it can easily make things worse.

[Jeithorpe]

21 minutes ago, thomaso said:

What limitation do you mean? And what rotation at all? – I guess I'd start with a hexagon. Possibly it helps to define a desired/ the required grid first. It also may help to use the button "Cycle Selection box" (base/regular bounds) in the Context Toolbar. And zoom in for more precision.

As workaround – e.g. if the previous calculation of lengths or angles isn't 100% perfect – a last option might be to convert to curves + move nodes to match the required edges. But once you start moving individual nodes, it can easily make things worse.

OMG.  I knew I was thinking about this all wrong.  Thank you!!

Yes, I did that and it definitely made things worse at first! 

[thomaso]

8 hours ago, Jeithorpe said:

I knew I was thinking about this all wrong.

I'm sure there are several useful ways to construct such an object. For example, your starting point with the "Square Star" shape may work, too. And rotating the object might also work or at least wouldn't harm if the object has a 1:1 aspect ratio with the individual edge segments of the polygon having identical length.

[Jeithorpe]

6 hours ago, thomaso said:

I'm sure there are several useful ways to construct such an object. For example, your starting point with the "Square Star" shape may work, too. And rotating the object might also work or at least wouldn't harm if the object has a 1:1 aspect ratio with the individual edge segments of the polygon having identical length.

The real problem with the Square Star tool, is that I can't figure out how to made the ends rounded, without converting to curves, but then I have an issue with precision, and making all three "points", or ends, perfectly even.

I'm also wanting to create something like the attached pic, as well.  I didn't create the attached file, obviously.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, Jeithorpe said:

with the Square Star tool, is that I can't figure out how to made the ends rounded,

I don't think it's possible. – But the Cog Tool seems to be suitable for that shape:

I assume to achieve "1000% perfect precision" for a shape, we would possibly have to calculate all angles and lengths mathematically correctly and then construct the shape as a composition of the simplest possible shapes (geometric addition, subtraction, etc.).

Just in case: There are several threads in the forum about mathematical precision versus the generic Affinity Shape Tool objects. For example, an Affinity circle is not a "perfect" circle, FWIW.

[Jeithorpe]

19 hours ago, Oufti said:

The problem is here:

I would redraw it, because correcting this seems to me more difficult than doing it right at once. Use of snapping and mirroring takes some trial and error, but finally proves to be helpful. 

 

 

33 minutes ago, thomaso said:

I don't think it's possible. – But the Cog Tool seems to be suitable for that shape:

I assume to achieve "1000% perfect precision" for a shape, we would possibly have to calculate all angles and lengths mathematically correctly and then construct the shape as a composition of the simplest possible shapes (geometric addition, subtraction, etc.).

Just in case: There are several threads in the forum about mathematical precision versus the generic Affinity Shape Tool objects. For example, an Affinity circle is not a "perfect" circle, FWIW.

Wonderful info!  Thank you!

[Oufti]

3 hours ago, Jeithorpe said:

The real problem with the Square Star tool, is that I can't figure out how to made the ends rounded, without converting to curves, but then I have an issue with precision, and making all three "points", or ends, perfectly even.

The use of Power duplicate (or Move data entry) and Compounds, with pertinent snapping options, could help you to "automate" the creation of regular shapes. 

[Jeithorpe]

6 minutes ago, Oufti said:

The use of Power duplicate (or Move data entry) and Compounds, with pertinent snapping options, could help you to "automate" the creation of regular shapes. 

Thank YOU!