chessboard

Why use workarounds when there could be a direct way? All discussions here are about tools. Tools should lead to working straight ahead, not thinking about solutions to problems caused by the tools. I am not a slave to my tools, I am not whining. I am just criticizing an incomplete workflow or concept here - as a customer. Because I would like to see the Affintiy Suite grow and become better. I work for publishers and have to live with the critics of the art directors. Most times they are right and my work get's better when I hear to their critics. Basically, I have no problem with evolving software. And I understand that there is a concept behind the way layer locking is designed in Affitiy software. But since this concept is obviously not thought through to the end or complete, I would like to see Affinity do some tweaking here. They could provide a second option to fully lock a layer or they could modify the existing one. Doing things differently does not mean doing them better in every case. There are reasons why locking layers is done the way it is in other programs. By the way, Photoshop now has 5 different options for locking a layer, each with its own special purpose. I find this Adobe-hate a bit strange, but this aside. So where's the difference to AD? You can't select a locked object on the canvas in AD either. You have to find it in the layers palette. The problem in AD is the ability to manipulate a locked layer after it has been accidentally selected in the Layers panel, for example because it is part of a group or by selecting a range of layers, for example. Computers are dumb, but they could prevent you from making mistakes.

Sorry, but in my eyes this is too much mumbo-jumbo instead of just making a locked layer fully locked. Why not just respecting the standards users are used to? When I lock a layer, I want it to be protected from any possible manipulation, including accidental deletion. BTW, even if you turn off everything in the Assistant Manager, you can stil paint on a locked but selected pixellayer. Thus this is no protection at all.

Don't get too enthusiastic here 😉. At least your first point still remains, and that's a weighty one: I think, that's a function which an "Export Persona", thus a special part of the software dedicated to exporting, should be designed for: making exporting easy and reliable. It should also be possible to export the same area with different layer settings, not just different file formats.

Forget it. "You're using it wrong". It's a feature, not a bug - it won't be changed. Look at the date of the first post in this thread. (Yes, I am sarcastic here 😒)

Ok, I see! Thanks, Walt!

@TravancoreKing Well, it doen't make much sense to me either that objects outside the canvas are invisible. But that's the way it is (at least for now).

Oh, thanks! Never noticed it. I must admit that I don't use text too often. I mostly do illustrations.

Smooth tool or even better a simplify operation is missed really hard. Especially concerning the results of bool operations. Vector eraser would be nice, too. As well as a "recent fonts" section in the fonts menu. The last two aren't really on my personal priority list, but I can see the need. As for placing objects outside the canvas, you can do that even now. As long as you have only one cavas and no artboards, they are just invisible outside the canvas, but they are there. When you turn the canvas into an artboard, objects outside the artboard are visible, too.

You mean 2022? 😉

Welcome to the club! 😉 This wish has become a mantra. Let's hope it doesn't become a meme.

@PaRunk All nice and right what you're saying. But in the end the question for people who use the software to do their work and to generate income is: does it have the functions I need to do the job? At first, can it do the job at all, and second can it do it with the least amount of afford and the less time that's possible. And as sad as it is, I have to say that the Affintiy Suite is not the tool at the moment. It is allways claimed that it's hard work to develop such software. Of course it is, no doubt! But if you look around, there are some softwares that are also created by smaller teams and that develop much faster. For me the most impressive example are the two guys behind Photoline. But take Vector Styler for another example, or Vectornator. And after all, there has been the knowledge at Serif to implement the features. They were mostly there in Draw Plus! and the other Serif softwares. Thus it's not the point that they have to invent the wheel another time. And last but not least, not all concepts and software techniques behind the features are intellectual property of individual companies and thus inaccessible. Many things are just mathematics, many are published as white papers or part of open source libraries. And many features that are missing in the Affintiy softwares are just small extensions to the existing ones (just make solo mode permanent, for example. Just don't leave it by clicking somewhere on the canvas). And finaly, there's the point that we live in the year 2021. There are softwares that have evolved over decades and set the standards today. If you come into the market today (or better 7 years ago) and claim to have a professional software, you have measure yourself against the existing standards of professional software. You can just as easily not enter the car market today and say, "Hey, our car now has a gasoline engine and even manual transmission!" I'm afraid Affinity has found its niche in the semi-pro market, both in terms of features and price. And at least for me, it's not the costs that count. I would happily pay more, really more, if the Affinity softwares would be pushed to a real professional level.

My +1, too. As much as I appreciate Walt's advice, this is not about doing something maybe once or twice. For a hobby designer, it may not be a problem to turn a layer on or off once in a while. In professional life, you have to do some things hundreds of times a day. And there it is extremely time-saving and prevents a lot of trouble if you only have to define certain settings once and the software then reliably implements them the hundredth time. Time is money!

You're right! Hm, maybe it's hand-crafted after distorting in Affintiy Photo? (Or by using an different software 🤨? Just guessing...)

I would add the ability to bind layer visibility to slices. Something like the layer compositions in Photoshop. So that you can select which layers are visible for a special slice. For another slice that covers the same area there could be other layers visible. This way it would be easy to export alternative versions of a design without having to place the alternative designs as copies on other artboards or in differents files. And snapping could be improved, too. Slices should snap to object bounds. At the moment it's quite complicate to make a slice that's the exact size of two objects if these two objects are in different groups or layers or not grouped at all.

Sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree here. Affintiy's way of clipping layers by nesting them is so much more flexible and powerfull than in Photoshop. In Affinity's programs you can clip a shape by another shape, that's clipped by another shape, that's.... you get the point. This is really helpful when you need to be as flexible with your design as you can, especially when you work for clients. Clients do always want to change things, even when the artwork is actually finished. By using clipping hierarchies you can avoid destructive decissions when building up a design or illustration. Photoshop on the other hand can handle only one clipping step. If you want to clip the clipping layer you have to construct nested layer groups with layer masks. A lot of burdon compared to Affintiy. I think, Affinity's clipping concept is one of their strongest assets together with the mixture of vector and pixel layers. I don't know any software that can handle it this easy, either Photoshop, nor Illustrator, Clip Studio, Krita or Photoline. Your second point is valid, I think. It would be nice to invert a vector selection in the Affintiy programs, too, similary to inverting a pixel selection. Thus, select all objects that were unselected and deselect all objects that were selected.

Well, that's up to you and your workflow. You can do it this way or not 🤷‍♂️. Apart from this, there are many things that have to improve strongly in the Affinty Suite. But that's a well known mantra.

I consend that the blue indicator line could be visible much clearer and the transparent "ghost-layer" (moving with the cursor while dragging) is rather obstuctive than helpful. And in subgroups the difference between the indicator line lenghts is really too small. That said, I think it's not a bad handling at all. It's just the visual feedback that's problematic. BTW, you can use the three icons in the top right corner to place a layer instead of dragging it. Needs some more clicks and keys (CTRL-C, select layer where the cut one is to be placed under/over/inside in layers palette, press appropriate button top right, CTRL-V) but works also.

I suppose Walt is talking about the width of the blue highlight. Highlight with full width of the layers palette means, that the dragged layer is placed beneath the layer above the highlight. Highlight with cropped width means that the dragged layer is placed inside (as a child/sublayer) of the layer above the highlight. Vertical highlight right from a layers thumbnail means that the dragged layer becomes a layermask of this layer.

Well, I think there's more to come before Affinity becomes #1. I wouldn't put "animation" first here. There are many more important "building sites" for AD to become a full featured vector software. Vector Eraser is one of them.

Thanks, Sean! Good to know.

To be clear: the contour tool in 1.9 beta is NO solution for offset path (can't adjust the mitre, for example). I get even better and more flexible results by using mulitple strokes and using "Expand stroke". Interestingly, this method gives very similar results concerning the resulting vector points. So the algorithm behind it seems to be the same. The great advantage of offset path in Illustrator is, that it's a kind of effect that can be assigned to one specific stroke of a shape. So you can keep the original shape plus one or more offset paths. Changing the shape changes all offset paths instantly. As far as I can see, with the new contour tool you can just shift the contour of a shape. No multiple contours, no keeping of the original shape.

I have to correct myself. I just found out that Photoline can do this. When you select multiple anchorpoints you can drag one handle and move the corresponding handles of the other points synchronized. Fascinating 🖖.

Perhaps I dont understand correctly what you are after, but if you want to control the radius of the 4 corners of a square (for example), you can use the corner tool. Select all 4 corners and enter a value for the radius in the context bar to adjust them all together. As long as you don't convert the shape to curves again, you can always come back and adjust the corner radius again. If you want to manipulate 4 points of a vectorshape at the same time by dragging the handle of one of them and move the others synchronized, I think that's something none vector program is capable of. Adjusting 4 corners identically is always fiddly. Therefore using a corner tool to round them is almost always the better way.

This is what I thought Smart-Points would/should do.

There's a bug in Windows version with zoomimg out via SPACE-ALT-Keys with active pen tool or brush tool. This issue exists since some versions ago and is still in this beta. When using the pen or the brush tool it's not possible to zoom out by pressing SPACE+ALT. Zomming in by pressing SPACE+CTRL works fine.