I understand the thinking behind placing the arrows in such a way (yes I see the head of the arrow lines up) but visually they do not tell me they are aligned, it’s easily mistaken for being misaligned… as like the square shapes we expect the entire shape to be aligned. I suggest setting them so that the whole shape is aligned.
Second that. From some version, aligning open nodes became more of guessing. The arrow shape needs to look visually centered, not snapped at the tip. Or it needs to be some other shape like x (though the direction becomes ambiguous in x).
I think the only real problem is the start point, not the end point.
I have a look
Two options?
old:
new:
The new way makes it easier to see the alignment but it makes it less clear where the nodes are exactly.
Or like this:
(this screenshot is none Retina)
I prefer the other one without the little part sticking through, this little part of the line sticking through might be too subtle for it to be a useful cue?
Maybe show these examples when they are 1 pixel off?
I don’t see a difference between the two, other than the resolution. What am I missing?
I don’t mind the line sticking through. What counts is that it is clear where the path starts. And I think these work pretty well in that respect.
You dont see the difference between the old and new? triangles in the the old are not aligned, in the new they are.
I was talking about the two new ones Georg posted. I guess they are the same, except for Retina/non-Retina.
I’m on my phone but it looks like in the V2 new one, the beginning arrow has an emptied out middle, while V1 has a completely filled arrow.
Ah you mean between this one:
and
https://forum.glyphsapp.com/uploads/default/original/2X/b/bfdbbba21498217e2c68efe4a0bbfb3a51a87b32.png
? I’m not on retina and there is a difference, in the second example the path itself extrudes into the filled triangle with a slight white around the path so that the line is visible. I’m not sure this is necessary. I think we can understand where it starts?
I’ll let the white cut-in there for now. If it is annoying, I remove it later.
Thanks for bringing this up, Wei, and for the suggestions, Georg!
I was running into the same problem too.
I also liked the way it looked in Glyphs 1, but maybe this is just because I don’t really get why I have to know the direction of an open path? 
The path direction is important in several cases. e.g. if you build an interpolating stroke font.
And it is important for corner and cap components.
I agree with @Tosche where X marks the spot.
You can just colour one end differently to show the direction, but have the opposite side to use for aligning.
Works with triangles too, for a stronger differentiation.
Just a suggestion.
Nice idea but the selected point one does not look aligned anymore, it’s just like the above that if I concentrate I understand where the starting point is but at a glance it is not intuitive.
Yet another alternative: Make the start point like in Glyphs 1 (perpendicular stroke), but the end point like in Glyphs 2 (arrow head).
I think the X is too much, too much clutter if you work a lot with open paths, and not clear at first glance.
I think the reverse makes more sense (better to make first node distinct, not end node); it’s just that the node should not be aligned at the arrow tip.