Transform effects are appearing below content, not above

[Scott Falkner]

I'm experimenting with spirograph like patterns and effects, To do this I have created primitive shapes like squares and hexagons and applied transfrom effects like this…

In the above example there is one square with a black stroke and no fill. Even though I tell the stroke not to scale, it is scaled.

The problem is the duplicates are stacked below the primary object or group. I don’t think this has always been the case. See this one…

If I expand the appearance I can see outlines for all the shapes. But I need the duplicates to appear above the source image. Is thee a way to do this? Is this a bug?

[Monika Gause]

Transform is a "Post-effect" - it always gets applied afterwards initially. But you can move it above the Contents.

[Scott Falkner]

Didn’t help.

What did work is making the shape a compound path.

I think this is a bug.

[Monika Gause]

Sorry. I was on the wrong track. But I seem to remember this was always the case (for me at least, which means CS2).

My oldest version is CS3 and here is the screenshot:

[Scott Falkner]

My oldest version is CC 2017 and it does the same. I guess it was always bugged. And I would certainly call this a bug. Duplicating with Option-drag or Object > Transform puts the duplicate above the source. The effect should do the same.

Reported as a feature request.

[Ton Frederiks]

It does not solve your problem with the stacking order, but it gives a similar effect.

I filled a rectangle with white and gave the fill a Difference blending mode.

[tromboniator · Accepted solution]

Scott,

If you start with a small shape and scale it up (that is, greater than 100%), it stacks the other way. And I'm not seeing stroke scaling unless I tell it to.

Peter

[Kurt Gold]

Your approach sounds promising, Peter. Unfortunately I cannot confirm the reverse order.

Guess by "it stacks the other way" you mean that the copies are then created above the original path, don't you?

What am I missing?

[Jacob Bugge]

Kurt,

I am certain that Peter (it is rather early/late for him) means that the effect of the inherent and unchangeable order is countered by starting from the small end, so larger will be behind smaller, as desired.

Obviously, to get (almost) the same size of the largest one, it is necessary to invert the settings (inverse scaling and rotation and a starting size that equals the desired ending size divided by the [number of copies]th power of the (inverse) scaling (was that sane speak?).

[Kurt Gold]

Obviously, your last sentence is rather insane, Jacob, but all in all I think that you clarified a bit and Peter may have a well-deserved catnap.

[Jacob Bugge]

Obviously, Kurt.

I forgot to mention that it is, of course, possible to correct the (almost) desired size of the largest one, simply multiplying/dividing by the relative inaccuracy in the Transform palette (in the case below it was about 1.0002).

The switch of order as suggested by Peter can be seen here, with a filled square and a slower scaling, showing the inversion of the stacking order quite clearly.

[Kurt Gold]

Apparantly, there are four snoopy crocodiles at the edges in your first red sketch, Jacob.

What are they doing there? Are they dangerous?

[tromboniator]

Thanks, Jacob, for clarifying my blather. I've been Shakespeareing all day, and haven't checked back here to survey the damage. Yes, I am in an off-the-beaten-track time zone, and keep out-of-standard hours therein.

[Jacob Bugge]

Indeed, Kurt, ever waiting for those foolhardy enough to plunge in(to the unknown).

Hence the (rather solid) colour of the water.

[Jacob Bugge]

Peter,

Would that be the Scottish play, or are you too close to the theatre to give an answer?

[tromboniator]

Henry IV, part 2, and I'm not superstitious.

[Kurt Gold]

Jacob, consequentially your second red shot shows the crocodile death rolls, as far as I can see. Is that right?

Pretty coherent sketch.

[Jacob Bugge]

Quite right, Kurt.

But I believe they will claim to be misunderstood lizards.