Shape to Text Frame: Text is Backwards

[Cealcrest]

I have a triangle shape that I need to be identical to another, and for ease I shift+alt+click+drag to duplicate, then rotate 180 degrees. Finally, I select the Frame Text Tool and click the selected shape. When I start typing, the text is backwards.

Is there any way to effectively "reset" the shape so the computer sees it as being in an original orientation instead of rotated/backwards?

[Alfred]

Cover the triangle with a larger rectangle, select both shapes and use the ‘Intersect’ Geometry command.

[StuartRc]

Use the flip tool on context bar to rotate the text inside triangle

or draw shape with pen tool then convert to text frame [shape]

 

[toltec]

6 hours ago, Cealcrest said:

I have a triangle shape that I need to be identical to another, and for ease I shift+alt+click+drag to duplicate, then rotate 180 degrees. Finally, I select the Frame Text Tool and click the selected shape. When I start typing, the text is backwards.

Is there any way to effectively "reset" the shape so the computer sees it as being in an original orientation instead of rotated/backwards?

The problem is, once you rotate, flip or shear an object, Affinity remembers this so anything inside it will be rotated, flipped or sheared.

You therefore need to fool Affinity into resetting the object.This is basically the same as what Alfred suggests above but looks a bit less drastic. And the cat is more fun 

I assume this is what you did, with the bottom shape rotated 180 degrees.

The text in the bottom triangle is now upside down.

To reset the bottom triangle to "normal", first place a shape on top of it and enclosed by the boundaries of it (or parts will be added outside the triangle, which you don't want).

Any shape will do.

Select the bottom triangle and shape, and go Layer > Geometry > Add

The bottom triangle has taken it's rotation settings from the shape above it (the official Affinity cat).

Now, use the text tool and the text will be normal

[Alfred]

4 hours ago, toltec said:

This is basically the same as what Alfred suggests above but looks a bit less drastic. And the cat is more fun 

It was rather predictable that Rowlf would think a disappearing cat is more fun!

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the other method looks more drastic. It did cross my mind to describe the ‘Add’ method as well, albeit with a boring old (smaller) rectangle, but I decided that just one of the two methods would suffice and I happened to pick the ‘Intersect’ variant.

[toltec]

1 minute ago, αℓƒяє∂ said:

It was rather predictable that Rowlf would think a disappearing cat is more fun!

Sorry, simple things and all that ...

I just like the cat. Dogs love cats 

[Alfred]

1 minute ago, toltec said:

Dogs love cats 

Especially when they disappear, perhaps?

 

[Cealcrest]

Thank you all! I knew there must be some way to fool it, but I was blanking. Boolean operations to the rescue