derei

This is how great initiatives get to die... we have a plethora of other examples. Kinda sad, especially that it takes A LOT of time and effort to reach a point where you can compete with large corporations.

Tested in both 2.0.4 and in 1.x versions, and the issue seems to be the same. This is both worrying and reassuring: it looks like a ported error from some core programming of the app, but at the same time this can narrow the options and speed up discovering why and what's not working. So, devs... please dig! The issue (tested in Designer, but presumably it may be in all apps): a character can't be made subscript. However, it can be made superscript. The toggle works, but there is no change on the screen. There are more posts on this forum about this feature, but none in the bug report area, as I could see. Please fix this ASAP.

System: Windows 10 Pro N - Several protocols, services and features have been disabled in Windows, to reduce telemetry and Microsoft intrusion. - Registration of the apps (by using email and product key) went on flawlessly. - Attempting to log in into the account from within the app returns "We're sorry Something went wrong during registration or sign-in" and the error is: "Timeout while waiting for registration service "ready" notification" What I did: - disabled firewall - used simplewall firewall with enabled filters to monitor requests and make sure they are allowed Nothing seemed to work. My guess is that Affinity is using some protocol that is part of windows to do this account login operation and until I know what is that, I don't have any idea how to make it work. I'd appreciate some help from Affinity in this regard.

Thanks for this ... although is not as straight forward as a dumb "simplify curves" button, it does the job and it can go from super accurate preservation of the original curve, to really simplified and smoothed out. The secret: It depends on how many times you press the Smooth Curve button... In the experiment i did, i had to press it 3 times, in order to get a great balance between enough nodes removed and shape preservation. You can always undo, it you overdid it... and anyway, never edit your original geometry when you are not sure of the outcome. Always make a sacrifice copy.

I want to do something really basic: Write vertically using Latin Alphabet (so, no fancy characters)... but I can't seem to see where I can turn the horizontal to vertical. Basically I want this: T E X T but, the only way to do it, is manually to type each character on a new line and then very oddly to control the space between lines, rather than space between characters. Please help.

Considering that Linux and OSX kernels are pretty similar, or at least derived around UNIX, which makes them to work somewhat similar, would it be so difficult to have a Linux version of Affinity Suite derived from the OSX version? I do understand that coding for Windows and OSX is literally maintaining two different software, but if a Linux version could be easily derived from the OSX version, perhaps the work involved to maintain it would pay off, as it wouldn't actually be a 3rd software. I may be wrong here, but this is why I am raising the question... to find out if this is a possible route. Also, everyone is arguing the EXISTING market, how many users on Windows/OSX/Linux, etc... I don't think this evaluation has any relevance. Yes, this is how is NOW. Bit anyone asked WHY? Is not because Linux is inaccessible, it is because most developers ignored it in the past. But that's not true anymore. Even Steam noticed the relevance of addressing Linux users. It was argued "linux is for nerds". I'd disagree. Linux is NOT ONLY for nerds. Not anymore. Yes, it can be and there are flavors specifically developed for specialized use. But a lot of linux flavors are there for the general public, even tailored for smooth transition from any other popular OS. The increased awareness in data privacy is making more and more users look into privacy friendly software. Artists and Creators are not always ignorant. Many are growing interest in protecting their digital life. So, a patronizing attitude that says "we don't develop for linux because our users aren't informed and educated enough to use linux" is actually offensive towards your clients pool. Moreover, I believe you should be encouraging privacy and good ethics by supporting people to migrate towards more privacy friendly options.

you are missing the point: the reason why Affinity is being designed that once you opt in for the account you must always be logged in, is to avoid abuse, as from what they say. Now, the same "abuse avoidance" can be achieved by means which allow freedom to users and at the same time don't force one to be constantly logged in. What happens if internet drops, for example? Will Affinity compensate me for possible losses? I doubt. And I also doubt that you understand that freedom and privacy rights are not subject to status.

I am sure there is a healthy way of preventing this without abusing your users. And yes, requiring an user to be constantly logged in to have access to own tools is abuse. Once I buy a software or digital goods, I want to be able to have access to that good in my terms, not in seller terms. There is a law in this regards, by the way. Now, in terms of preventing abuse, you can limit connections by preventing an account to connect from multiple locations in a short period of time. Also, upon logging in, the account owner should be requested confirmation in their email. If an account would be shared, having to confirm access by email, would make it impractical for abusive purpose (imagine that you are the person sharing the abusive credentials, would you spend your time to manually grant access to all sorts of requests from random people?). Also, as mentioned above, if the requests would come from all over the world, that would be a clear sign of abuse and the accoint can be permanently banned from using the service. You may be concerned that if user has to email confirm every log in, it will become frustrating. Not if the assets are being installed locally on log in. This means that once logged in, one doesn't necessarily have to log in again until new assets are purchased/added to the inventory and they have to be installed on the specific terminal. You must understand better than anyone that you CANNOT prevent piracy. You may make it less appealing, you can control the level of abuse, but in the end, piracy is part of the game. Moreover, is in your benefit (yeah, surprisingly, piracy is beneficial for commercial software, under certain conditions). Also, I switched from Adobe to Affinity for the ethical stand... I won't support you if you take the control-freak path... please be ethical in your actions.

Great finding, thank you. I understand how this could be useful. So far, when I needed such functionality, I used to lock all other groups that might interact with my work. Bit tedious to go all locking and unlocking.

Question has been asked countless times. Most answers reflecting the best efforts of people to provide an explanation, but hardly the official position or Serif's intended purpose for the two elements (Layers and Groups in Affinity Designer). If there is a clear explanation, I clearly missed it. *I AM AWARE YOU WISH TO HELP, But if your answer is only relying on assumptions, or what you *think* it may be an explanation, please do not reply to this question. The reason for this request is that there is a lot of confusion in this area, so is time for a clear and definitive explanation. Thank you for your understanding. My findings so far: - both layers and groups can hold objects inside. - a group can have layers under, and a layer can also have groups under - when a grouped set of objects is selected and manipulated on the screen, it acts like an object (moves together, scale together). - when an object on a layer is selected on the screen, it is being selected separately from the rest of the objects on the same layer. However, when the layer is being selected in Layers Panel, all elements are being selected and the selection behaves like it was a group. - both layers and groups seem to respond the same to effects and other modifiers (unless I omitted to try certain features which may be specific only to one of the two) Questions: 1. What are the punctual differences between Layers and Groups in AD? 2. When to use Layers and when to use Groups? - of course, the answer to this question will be logically derived from the first one.

thanks, that solved it.

Windows 7 x64 AD 1.8.5 - Constraints Panel activated in View/Studio - Constraints Panel nowhere to be seen. Need Help.

I just tried that, indeed it changes the dpi depending on the actual page size (when clicking on it), you are correct. Thank you.

In my own words, if you copy something, copy it to make it better, not a cheaper version. Makes sense? Let me say it again, for you to understand (i'm worried that you often skip the essential): If you come up with your new original, never seen before idea, then you can say "well, is new, is a bit rough, we'll see how it catches and we will adjust it". But when someone else came with an idea and you just copy it, then make sure your copy brings something considerably better, improve it.

This post is not meant to be a criticism, but a suggestion. I would have not spent my time drawing and taking screenshots if I just wanted to rant about something what bothers me. I did observe the interface can be easily improved and I offered my suggestion as designer, exactly because new features tend to have some rough edges. And as a user I'm always happy to provide my feedback. For pct.1: I'm on Windows (still Win7). Tried on all three software. Behavior is similar: the preset DPI will not change when switching between different presets. This is a standard feature, designing for certain applications requires different DPI, so it should come into the help of the user by suggesting the most common dpi value for the need (300 dpi for print, 72 or 96 for various screens, etc). Please check the attached video (was made for AD, but the other two are the same). AD New Doc.webm For pct.2: I understand the reasoning, but "the needs of the many vs the needs of the few"... most templates come with fewer characters, where a bigger font will be just fine. The longer titles, as 'Social media square post' can be written on two lines. No sane UX designer would sacrifice the user experience for a 4 words title. In my view, is way more important that the user has a comfortable experience overall, by easily choosing a page size without having to think too much, compared to the fact that one or two templates may have to suffer in some way. There are always solutions, what matters is the intended result: do we want to make it better for the users, or we stick with some nonsense pattern because we are attached towards it?