Tazintosh Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Hi folks, I would like to be able to set much more precisely the gap value of a stroke in Affinity. There is a trick I'm using quite often (in Sketch) which makes able to finely fake a "progress" of the stroke around a circular shape. The point is to set the gap of the stroke as the exact diameter of the circle by multiplying π with it's width (for instance, 500*3.14159265359 if your circle is 500px diameter). This basically means that the gap is now equal to the perimeter of the circle. By changing the Dash value then, we can precise make the stroke grow around the circle. PreciseBorderStrokeProgress.mov Sadly in Affinity, gap value goes from 0 to 100, which simply is way less easy to fine tune, to understand, and also prevent choosing whatever stroke width we want etc. I would love to be able to adjust more precisely these values, but ultimately (and I'm sure you Affinity guys knows exactly what I'm going to say ^^), it would be amazing if you could simply provide a new setting for the stroke: "Progress". With a slider (or precise value input), we could instantly set the progress of a stroke, as well as many other options like how it is etc. Can't wait to hear your thought about it. Cheers. paolo.limoncelli 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paolo.limoncelli Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 It would be amazing if you could simply provide a new setting for the stroke: "Progress". With a slider (or precise value input), we could instantly set the progress of a stroke, as well as many other options like how it is etc. Can't wait to hear your thought about it. Cheers. Yep... Maybe the easiest way could be to place an "open" option to pies? So we could easily work with available handles :) Also I'd love dimensional input for shapes' parameters. Quote The white dog, making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazintosh Posted November 18, 2016 Author Share Posted November 18, 2016 Yep... Maybe the easiest way could be to place an "open" option to pies? I was more thinking for an even more generic feature, that applies to all shapes, non limited to circles :) paolo.limoncelli 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paolo.limoncelli Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I was more thinking for an even more generic feature, that applies to all shapes, non limited to circles :) Yes, it would be terrific :) Quote The white dog, making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff Ben Posted December 12, 2016 Staff Share Posted December 12, 2016 Also I'd love dimensional input for shapes' parameters. I have put some thought into this. There are a number of issues that would need to be addressed. The main problem is deciding what the values mean. If you have an object that has some scaling and shear, the idea of 'size' depends on which direction or axis you chose to base things on. If I take a rectangle and shear it, then I either evaluate the new size based on the new sheared limits, or I try to use the un-sheared original size. It's not so straight forward - what makes sense to the user. We do allow absolute size values for things like corner size of rounded rectangles. We do this by eliminating shear from the equation - so the size values are only really true for a shape that has no shear. We are also able to project the corners in transformed space for this shape. Something that we can't do with other shapes. Next, if I'm talking about the size of the hole in a donut or pie shape - if the shape is uniform (same width and height), then the size is correct, but if the shape has different height and width, what axis do I assume we use as the basis for calculating the hole size? You say, "I want a hole of 50 pixels", but the donut is 200 by 300 pixels in real size, so is the hole 1/4 of the width or 1/6 of the height? Quote SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer Software engineer - Photographer - Guitarist - Philosopher iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395 MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300 iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paolo.limoncelli Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 I have put some thought into this. There are a number of issues that would need to be addressed. The main problem is deciding what the values mean. If you have an object that has some scaling and shear, the idea of 'size' depends on which direction or axis you chose to base things on. If I take a rectangle and shear it, then I either evaluate the new size based on the new sheared limits, or I try to use the un-sheared original size. It's not so straight forward - what makes sense to the user. We do allow absolute size values for things like corner size of rounded rectangles. We do this by eliminating shear from the equation - so the size values are only really true for a shape that has no shear. We are also able to project the corners in transformed space for this shape. Something that we can't do with other shapes. What you're writing makes perfectly sense. So for this part I guess there is no solution... Anyway, speaking of donuts... Next, if I'm talking about the size of the hole in a donut or pie shape - if the shape is uniform (same width and height), then the size is correct, but if the shape has different height and width, what axis do I assume we use as the basis for calculating the hole size? You say, "I want a hole of 50 pixels", but the donut is 200 by 300 pixels in real size, so is the hole 1/4 of the width or 1/6 of the height? I want to dare a solution... Since you detailed the analytical approach of these shapes, wouldn't make sense to expose the a/b axis of the Ellipse to keep it consistent maybe? Today Ellipse behaves as a "stretched" circle (behaviour available everywhere in the vector panorama), but a real Ellipse is more "abstract" than a circle, so this could cover the scenario you described above. Please forgive me if I wrote something stupid here :) Today I have very clever and flexible Ellipse Tool, with holes and sectors options, but cannot use it as much as I would, because the "create a 50px hole" is much more common scenario than "create a 25% hole". At least in my work this is what happens, so CMD+J and Operations are still my best friends :) Quote The white dog, making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff Ben Posted December 12, 2016 Staff Share Posted December 12, 2016 No, nothing stupid about that. I know our donut is a simple form. This is not entirely down to us being lazy, and more to do with conformity across all our shapes. With the exception of the rounded rectangle, all other shapes express sizes in terms of a percentage of their dimensions. This means that we don't have to project these sizes in separate axis based on their end transform - something which would become very difficult for the more complex shapes such as Cog and Star. We do already have the ability to create the type of donut you are talking about - ellipse, with an inner stroke. Expand stroke on this example would create quite a complex set of curves, though - and I try to keep the geometry as simple as possible for our Shapes. So experimentation will be needed as I wouldn't just use the same code as expanding strokes. Again, shear would have to be ignored in any projections, so an object with shear will produce incorrect sizes. Quote SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer Software engineer - Photographer - Guitarist - Philosopher iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395 MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300 iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paolo.limoncelli Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 I'm perfectly sure all we find now in AD/AP has been designed as a basement to make "future" implementations easier and much more performant. All you wrote make me think about live projection of these shapes on isometric/dimetric grids at certain point, and this makes me happy... :) Quote The white dog, making tools for artists, illustrators and doodlers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.