How to join paths?

[alexsowa]

I basically want to join to two paths together.

 

In Illustrator, all I need to do is select the two ends, and click 'cmd + J' - done!

 

Here, I find I have to select (A), click both lines (as I can seem to select both endpoints at once), then click 'Join Curves' - easy yeah? No, still no success. Why is there not a shortcut as simple as Illustrator? 

 

Someone there must be an easier way surely...

[MEB]

Hi alexsowa,

Welcome to Affinity Forums :)

Currently, when you select two curves and press the Join Curves button, the closest end nodes of each line will be connected through a line - which may not be what you want. Alternatively - with both curves selected - you can drag one end node from one of the lines over the end node of the other then press Join Curves to join those nodes. Make sure Snap to Geometry of selected curves is enabled in the Snap section (context toolbar) for the Node Tool - so the nodes will snap when they are overlapping (they become yellow when this happens).

[R C-R]

Adding a bit to what MEB said, I have found that dragging & snapping one node onto another one & then using Join Curves sometimes merges the two nodes into one (which is what I usually want) but sometimes they remain as two separate nodes. I am not sure why it does not always work in the same way.

 

What I sometimes do instead of dragging an existing node is to add a node, either on one of the curves near its end or beyond the end of that curve, & then drag whichever one is now the end node to near but not on the end of the other curve. I then use the Join Curves action to connect those ends, & finish up by adding, option-deleting, or reshaping nodes as needed to get the best results. (The option-detele tries to preserve the shape of the curve through the now deleted node with varying degrees of success.)

 

This is tedious & more complicated than it should be but sometimes it is the only way I know to get the results I want.

[cornishninja]

I hope there's a fix or improvement in the pipeline for this, because doing it the way that's being described is not working for me at all. Illustrator does this job easily and quickly. Why try to reinvent the wheel?

[Thomahawk]

Right cornishninja. And it seems, there is still no better method.

[PixelPest]

Maybe I´m missing your point:

[R C-R]

35 minutes ago, PixelPest said:

Maybe I´m missing your point:

There are 2 problems with that:

1. It changes the shape of the lower curve instead of just joining the nearest ends.
2. Sometimes, even with snapping enabled, it creates 2 nodes on top of each other where they join. I'm not sure why that is, but it is very hard to tell that has happened until you do something like making what appears to be one node a "smart" one.

[ashf]

Would be nice if I cloud just join two curves like Illustrator.

 

[HDoowop]

My question is ver similar to this other wise I would have created a new thread. 

I'm working with 4 objects/curves(?) the two main objects ( in grey) and then the two lines to complete the shape. How would I turn the entire shape into one object so I can then start to fill the shape in with colour. I have tried selecting all 4 objects and choosing  join and then close but it ends up creating an extra line between the 2 curved lines which ends up looking weird. 

 

thanks.

[ashf]

@HDoowopI guess you need to break two shapes into open curve, then join them with other curves.

[HDoowop]

10 minutes ago, ashf said:

@HDoowopI guess you need to break two shapes into open curve, then join them with other curves.

I'll try that out, thanks. I'm hoping theres a simpler/better way to do it though. 

[PixelPest]

9 hours ago, R C-R said:

There are 2 problems with that:

1. It changes the shape of the lower curve instead of just joining the nearest ends.
2. Sometimes, even with snapping enabled, it creates 2 nodes on top of each other where they join. I'm not sure why that is, but it is very hard to tell that has happened until you do something like making what appears to be one node a "smart" one.

1. What? Sure it will when you drag a node - what should it do instead?

It´s easy enough to draw a straight&join - no?

2. Try harder. 

[PixelPest]

7 hours ago, HDoowop said:

My question is ver similar to this other wise I would have created a new thread. 

I have no idea what you want as a result in the end:

(Boolean add with a locked pixel layer which vanishes seems a bug to me BTW)

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, PixelPest said:

1. What? Sure it will when you drag a node - what should it do instead?

I think what many of us would like is the ability to select the specific end nodes from each open curve to connect with the "Join Curves" button, because it is not always the closest nodes we want to join. There may be more than two curves to join, & the next step often is to close the resultant curve.

With that in mind, consider this contrived but simple 3 curve example:

As it is, to get what I wanted I have to draw 1 more line, join that with one of the curves, join that with another of the curves, join that with the remaining curve, & then finally close the curve. Due to a long standing bug, while I am joining curves, the stroke width will probably increase, sometimes by so much that the stroke width is larger than the entire curve, so I have to keep resetting it to see what I am doing.

If I could choose the end nodes to join, this would be reduced to 2 joins & a close, possibly plus 1 reset of the stroke width.

Aside from that, since we currently can't choose which end nodes to join, there is no reason the Join Curves Action must only be available when the Node Tool is selected. I have already assigned a keyboard shortcut to that action (Shift+J), so if nothing else it would be a minor time saver if it worked any time 2 or more open curves were selected. Better still would be a button on the Move Tool context toolbar or an item in the right-click popup menu on the Layers panel, or if all 3 of these were available whenever 2 or more open curves were selected.

[PixelPest]

Aside from the fact that this is a nonsense scenery (Why would one draw this 3 curves separately?) I can close it in 3 sec.:

Nonetheless I like the robust toolset Inkscape offers though.

 

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, PixelPest said:

Aside from the fact that this is a nonsense scenery (Why would one draw this 3 curves separately?) I can close it in 3 sec.:

Like I said, this is a simple 3 curve example. Imagine having many more than 3 curves to join, perhaps as the result of several break curve actions needed because the curves are not ones you made yourself; or you needed to duplicate, break apart, & join some set of curves a different way to create other closed paths to fill.

Basically, it does not scale well & too often results in an awkward workflow.

BTW, it isn't totally "nonsense scenery." It is adapted from an old project in which I wanted to create a filled curve to use as hair for a cartoon figure. I had drawn several separate curves to help decide how to shape & position the closed curves that would form the head, ear, jaw, etc. After that was roughed in, I joined the 'hair' curves into a single closed one. Later, I boolean added a few other smaller overlapping angular shapes to it to give it a more messy, unkempt look.

[HDoowop]

6 hours ago, PixelPest said:

I have no idea what you want as a result in the end:

(Boolean add with a locked pixel layer which vanishes seems a bug to me BTW)

Boolean add with a locked pixel layer? I'm not too sure what that means... is there a thread I can pull up which explains it? 

 

 

Also, I'attached a picture of what I was trying to accomplish. I had to draw another shape on top of the gap to cover it which works however its not the cleanest result because I can't follow the same paths exactly as the original. 

[PixelPest]

6 hours ago, HDoowop said:

I had to draw another shape on top of the gap to cover it which works however its not the cleanest result

No no no - this isn´t necessary by all means. We use vector graphics to just avoid this to happen. Duplicate the shape - modifier - alter - break - add - subtract whatever you want. I don´t see any reason to draw the same shape 2 times. I´m under the impression you´re over-complicating things.

Cheers

[R C-R]

6 hours ago, HDoowop said:

Also, I'attached a picture of what I was trying to accomplish.

Not that it should matter much, but from your screenshot it looks like you are using the iPad version of Affinity Designer. Is that correct?

[HDoowop]

2 hours ago, PixelPest said:

No no no - this isn´t necessary by all means. We use vector graphics to just avoid this to happen. Duplicate the shape - modifier - alter - break - add - subtract whatever you want. I don´t see any reason to draw the same shape 2 times. I´m under the impression you´re over-complicating things.

Cheers

I only did it that way because that was the only way I could think of doing it, I only drew the part of the shape to fill in the gap. But yeah my bad, I guess I'm not understanding what you are suggesting. The example you posted earlier can get me there part of the way but then it takes away the stroke from the top part of the object. 

 

2 hours ago, R C-R said:

Not that it should matter much, but from your screenshot it looks like you are using the iPad version of Affinity Designer. Is that correct?

Yeah, I'm working on the ipad version. I figured my question was general enough to post in this section; plus, this section seems to have a lot more activity lol. 

[PixelPest]

8 hours ago, HDoowop said:

The example you posted earlier can get me there part of the way but then it takes away the stroke from the top part of the object.

Simple double the top shape before Boolean add. I hope the toolset with the iOS version is identical as I made a starter file with the desktop version I have - saved with history enabled so you can follow my quick steps:

Key.afdesign

Hope this helps.

Cheers

PS: selecting a locked pixellayer during Boolean operation will delete it - which in most case isn´t wanted - so I guess it´s a bug - I will use it as a feature in the future though.

 

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, PixelPest said:

PS: selecting a locked pixellayer during Boolean operation will delete it - which in most case isn´t wanted - so I guess it´s a bug - I will use it as a feature in the future though.

On my copy of Affinity Designer, pixel layers are excluded from boolean operations, so it does not matter if they are part of a selection or locked or not -- they are not deleted.

[PixelPest]

As I accidentally left the pixel layer selected yesterday because I locked it - it seems to count into the Boolean operation - which doesn´t makes sense methinks.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, PixelPest said:

As I accidentally left the pixel layer selected yesterday because I locked it - it seems to count into the Boolean operation - which doesn´t makes sense methinks.

I get different results from your first animation when the layer remains an Image layer & I boolean subtract: I end up with a Curves layer, which when boolean divided results in 2 Curve layers, both of which have no stroke or fill.

When I rasterize the Image layer to a pixel layer & boolean add all 3, I get a single Curve layer & the pixel layer is indeed deleted.

However, it does not matter if the Image or Pixel layer is locked or not.

[PixelPest]

7 minutes ago, R C-R said:

However, it does not matter if the Image or Pixel layer is locked or not

Does it makes sense to you?