Problem with OPERATIONS and Font Scripts

[Alfred]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

As it shows, the Add operation just deletes a shape that is fully enclosed by another shape, so that is obviously not what you want. But subtracting a shape from one that encloses it creates a "Curves" layer with the path of the smaller object defining the shape of the hole.

 

It’s worth noting that you can also ‘Add’ non-overlapping shapes, which gives you the same result as you would get if you were to ‘Combine’ those shapes. For example, having created a shape for a dotless i “Curve” object you can turn it into a dotted i “Curves” object by placing a dot above it and adding or combining the two shapes.

[R C-R]

8 hours ago, Alfred said:

It’s worth noting that you can also ‘Add’ non-overlapping shapes, which gives you the same result as you would get if you were to ‘Combine’ those shapes.

Indeed, 'Add' gives distinctly different results depending on the extent of the overlap:

Only the paths of the shapes determine the extent of the overlap, ignoring any stroke widths or their alignments to the center or edges of their respective paths. This means it is possible for shapes with wide strokes to look like they overlap when they do not, so adding them can lead to unexpected results if you are not aware of that.

 

In general, because it is easy to overlook the small difference between a "(Curve)" & a "(Curves)" object in the Layers panel, some users (myself included) think an improvement would be to change the "(Curves)" label to something else less easily confused with the singular one, like maybe "(Multi-curve)" or possibly even "(M-Curve)" or the like.

[graphxlord]

20 hours ago, R C-R said:

Hi @graphxlord! Regarding operations that make holes or loops in shapes, this illustration may help:

As it shows, the Add operation just deletes a shape that is fully enclosed by another shape, so that is obviously not what you want. But subtracting a shape from one that encloses it creates a "Curves" layer with the path of the smaller object defining the shape of the hole. This also works if you subtract several shapes from one that incloses all of them, as with the "L" shape. For this to work properly, note that the stacking order in the Layers panel is important: the enclosing shape must be below the enclosed ones.

 

You also must perform the subtraction operation on each set of enclosed shapes & the one that encloses them separately (like the 2 loop shapes & the enclosing 'loopless' one of the "L" shape). So for example, from your first screenshot the W & L outline shape is an enclosing one & the two loops of the L are its enclosed ones that should be subtracted from it. It is hard to tell exactly how your layers are organized, but most likely those three shapes are all part of one "Curves" layer. If so, use the Divide operation on that layer, make sure the 2 loop shapes are above the outline shape, select all 3 & subtract to get that part of the logo into its own "Curves" layer that preserves the loops.

 

It is hard to tell from the screenshot how many shapes are in the "ar" part but the basic procedure is the same: divide any "Curves" it includes as needed to break it down into individual enclosed & enclosing "Curve" layers, place all the enclosed ones above the enclosing one, select them all, & subtract to get a "Curves" layer that preserves the loops. Do the same separately for the "ords" part, & if you want you can group the 3 resulting "Curves" layers (WL, ar, & ords) together to make it easier to edit them as if they were a single object.

 

My apologies if I am covering anything you already know about, but I hope this will help with anything you don't.

No apologies necessary RC, I do a ton of lettering in both printing and embroidering, so I know that this thread will come in handy again and again. I am a huge fan of a going over material even if I think I may know it already, the possibility that I may have missed something is very high. I thank you for being thorough. You are clearly great at being very detailed in your explanation and I urge you to do a video because based upon the responses within this thread there is a real need for it. The problem for me as an artist I am a visual and an auditory learner. Once you go beyond 3 steps in the written form I start to get a bit overwhelmed and can lose track of where I was and where I need to go. So 85% of the time I am going to get the full understanding from a youtube clip coupled with the written. It's just how I have always learned. So please do consider a youtube video RC :-) Thank You!

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, graphxlord said:

So please do consider a youtube video ...

I don't make tutorial videos for several reasons. The most significant one is that sadly, I have never mastered the necessary skills needed to produce ones that are clear, concise, & to the point. In less than an hour I can create & edit illustrations like the ones in this discussion that (hopefully) are easy to understand, but it would take me days to make a video that accomplished that half as well. 

[graphxlord]

3 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I don't make tutorial videos for several reasons. The most significant one is that sadly, I have never mastered the necessary skills needed to produce ones that are clear, concise, & to the point. In less than an hour I can create & edit illustrations like the ones in this discussion that (hopefully) are easy to understand, but it would take me days to make a video that accomplished that half as well. 

Not to worry my friend I actually have forwarded this thread to a person on youtube that does a lot of Affinity tutorials, her name is Isabel, I am waiting on a reply from her as we speak and hopefully she'll be up for the task. As soon as I hear from her I'll let all within this thread know with a post. Thank you again for your input and contributions to this topic. Much Appreciated!

[IsabelAracama]

On 19/03/2018 at 0:08 PM, graphxlord said:

Not to worry my friend I actually have forwarded this thread to a person on youtube that does a lot of Affinity tutorials, her name is Isabel, I am waiting on a reply from her as we speak and hopefully she'll be up for the task. As soon as I hear from her I'll let all within this thread know with a post. Thank you again for your input and contributions to this topic. Much Appreciated!

 

Hi graphxlord

Been looking into this as I promised you a few days ago. Please check this attachment and let me know if this is the effect you're looking for. I couldn't read all the thread due to lack of time and not sure if anyone suggested my method before but it took me little time and was quite easy to achieve. If so, I'll do the video as I said the moment I have a sec. As you can see in the image there's no raster for the stroke. I used a workaround to do this as I could not see a way to do this "automatically". Wait for your answer.

[lepr]

.

 

[graphxlord]

On 3/27/2018 at 5:04 PM, owenr said:

Another method is to set the text's stroke to centre-aligned and behind fill.

 

 

 

 

Once you convert the Text to Vector it will revert to the same problem of an overlapping stroke. It's fine if you leave it as text but once you hit (Ctrl Enter) to convert it to (Curves) you get ....

 

 

 

[graphxlord]

On 3/27/2018 at 10:01 AM, IsabelAracama said:

 

Hi graphxlord

Been looking into this as I promised you a few days ago. Please check this attachment and let me know if this is the effect you're looking for. I couldn't read all the thread due to lack of time and not sure if anyone suggested my method before but it took me little time and was quite easy to achieve. If so, I'll do the video as I said the moment I have a sec. As you can see in the image there's no raster for the stroke. I used a workaround to do this as I could not see a way to do this "automatically". Wait for your answer.

Looking forward to the tutorial Isabel :-) Thank You!

[lepr]

.

[IsabelAracama]

Ok, so here the promised video. I see now reading some of the posts that Alfred thought of the same solution as me, which I find the best so far, so now I hope it's a bit clearer for you to get what we mean with the video itself. Enjoy and like or something! Thanks!

 

 

 

[dutchshader]

maybe there is another way.

 

type you text duplicate the text , select both and a bolean add.

this is what i get:

 

[Move Along People]

-

[IsabelAracama]

36 minutes ago, dutchshader said:

maybe there is another way.

 

type you text duplicate the text , select both and a bolean add.

this is what i get:

 

 

 

Bravo, very clever and best solution so far! My video is outdated two hours after loooouuul.. I might do one with this option of yours if you don't mind?

[MikeW]

I'm not at a computer, but does the add of 2 copies produce more nodes?

[dutchshader]

Sorry about your vid. I don't mind if you use this method, it is all about helping people.

[dutchshader]

2 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I'm not at a computer, but does the add of 2 copies produce more nodes?

not realy:

 

[IsabelAracama]

7 minutes ago, dutchshader said:

Sorry about your vid. I don't mind if you use this method, it is all about helping people.

 

 

No need to be sorry at all, all of the contrary! I did the video for the same purpose and I am VERY GLAD you came up with a better solution dutchshader... now I can use it too!

I now would like to make a video with your method for more people to learn it, it is obviously the best method that anyone could come up with here. Thanks!

[lepr]

.

[graphxlord]

12 hours ago, IsabelAracama said:

Ok, so here the promised video. I see now reading some of the posts that Alfred thought of the same solution as me, which I find the best so far, so now I hope it's a bit clearer for you to get what we mean with the video itself. Enjoy and like or something! Thanks!

 

 

 

Thank You!! Thank You!!! Thank You!!!!  I see others have offered an alternate solution, but since I am not very clear about what it is just by reading it (That's always my problem, I need a visual/video) I will use your method Isabel :-) I am super happy and thankful to you Isabel for doing this :-) I think I could listen to you read the ingredients off of a cereal box LOL, you have a voice that is very easy on the Ears, Affinity should pay you to do all of their Tutorials :-) 

 

Thanks TO ALL of you who have offered contributions, tips, and solutions on this thread!!!! Greatly appreciative of this wonderful Illustration Affinity Community !!!!!!

Happy Creating Guys!!!

 

[IsabelAracama]

Hi again! 

So, I made a new video demoing the solution dutchshader proposed (thanks again!) plus the automated option I found out a few days ago!

So yes, AD can do this automatically BUT, there's a bit of a downside to it, unless someone else knows better. 

 

Check the new x2 solutions here guys and please like it if you do and comment and so on, so it hopefully gets more views. Thanks so much. Kisses! 

 

 

[lepr]

.

[IsabelAracama]

7 hours ago, owenr said:

@IsabelAracama, I already posted the "behind fill" solution in this thread. 

 

@owenr Great! As I said, I didn't read all the posts cause my time is a bit limited. Now there's also a video for ppl to watch as graphxlord requested plus advise on when and why to use this or what dutchshader proposed.

Cheers!