konstantnnn

I was certainly under an impression I’m working in a vector program Aligning shapes and images and having The program make random gaps everywhere I looked even if it said that the objects were perfectly aligned next to one another with no air gap present. Having a set in stone mentality is the quickest way to develop poor software. I’m just giving feedback. I don’t know, for me it’s so simple how it should work. You see, if I snap two objects together, “snap” kinda implies they are magnetically sticked to one another, and magnets kinda imply they are so close together there’s no air inbetween them. Any air gap, at ANY pixel size or rendering technology s h o u l d n ‘ t be there because snapped objects imply snapped objects, airgap-less objects! While your analogy is pretty , I’m actually using a vector type workflow in a vector based program with vector shapes and vector tools to align vectors for my vector project — pretty logical to me. Furthermore, the issue arizes even in vector based viewing and in vector based outline viewing in an again, a vector based program — it even occurs in vector based output formats such as PDF. And even now, just because a raster view has a limitation (or frankly an rendering error), doesn’t mean users are using it wrong. Push the limitation forward and make better software, in my mind.

I’m quite shocked, I didnt know Apple snaps to whole pixels. I could have a 1000px document and bring three images and snap them and align them so each one seems like it takes up 333,333 pixels and no gaps would be found, furthermore I can put a decimal number in the “Properties” tab of each project. And while zoomed in to 10000000%, I can freeformly transform and it doesnt seem like it’s snapping to any points or pixels at all. Thanks for the insight. The original image is split up because it has been designed as a carousell for a website and instagram. I see now how antialiasing works, but still, why if there are two objects aligned at any halfpixel size, why would there be a gap? Let me “draw” this to you in an another way. Let’s say I literally created geometrically perfect documents, a 100px square and a 100px square next to it in a “200px*100px” document”. Pixel perfect, no gaps. I exported this as PDF. Now I bring this new PDF into my new raster document with an arbitrary size. I free-transform the shape. Let’s say, I free-transform the shape to 56,67px height. It’s not whole pixels now. What are your expectations, should an arbitrary gap appear all of a sudden?? If your literal import shape had no gap in the beginning, if its perfectly aligned? My two cents on this is even if your square had dimensions 245,3222215132142314132px. The software should interprate that “Hey, if user snapped an object next to me, lets start another image at 245,3222215132142314132px and continiue to the right. You see, right there, there is virtually no space left for an air gap. And if the software continiues to think that 0,0000000000000000001 pixel is still enough to count as a “gap” and an error in antialiasing, then the software should at least use its anti aliasing alghorithm and that thing of ‘changing opacity based on thickness” that you pointed out to realize that the gap is so thin that it’s opacity should be 0,00000000000000001%, virtually rendering the gap invisible, unlike now where it’s pretty visible. This is how it should work.

And for the record, they don't want gaps.

Yeah the images are a bit off, something's up with Wayback machine and their cropping, but that's off topic, like, like…I think this is my two cents on this... my head is almost hurting now. As I continue to point out, I can put any arbitrary halfpixel, quarter or 1/1000000th of a pixel size into Apple Keynote, Pages, Numbers, and align them both, and they render and export correctly in all possible formats at all possible resolutions. This is what Affinity should do. Sizes dont need to be whole pixels. What if I didnt want them to be whole pixels? I do, but what if I didnt? And its irrelevant, users shouldnt have to conform to a technical problem and limitation of a program, at least if the developers care for the program to be good-ly designed..Turns out, it's going to really surprise all of us how many people use FREEFORM transforming and no transform panels and guides and calculators. Including me. I resize it until it feels right. Just like it's expected to be done, why would we have handles and the option to turn off "pixel" snapping altogether if it's not expected of us? If I duplicate an object, no matter, no matter what it's size, I should, I should be able to snap it next to it's identical instance with no gaps. I should. I don't really care anymore about the technical issues of this and that and the seventy five thousand pages workarounds, I should just do it the expected way, the fast way, the logical way and the right way. This is not expected behaviour for aligning images. If I can't because of antialiasing-issues-or-anything-else, change it. I mean, I just want to apply and align different layers. I'm almost becoming a molecular scientist and computer engineer now! I cant and dont have enough time to worry about are there, why, how, and why are gaps appearing in my document! when there's a 3 hour limit until I can submit my work to an agency.

Do you happen to know why this isnt on by default?

Hahahahahah, I cant believe it! Its just artboards and images, been there since the beginning. Thanks much mate anyways!! I can always jump hoops and get around this but, you know, why not just have them fix it

I imported the two images into APPLE KEYNOTE and aligned them within 2 seconds with their guides. No gap. Exported into PDF. No gap. I really didn't want to bring my opinions on why Apple develops superior software and why I desperately want them to design a desktop publishing app, but here we come. This is so easy. Import images. Align them. No gap. That should be it! Seriously. Is this that hard to grasp somehow? So an end user has to worry about decimal places now? This is just faulty engineering and lazy bandaid patches to cover up a flawed architecture beneath.

I mean funny thing, from all the issues I already encountered, it would be just so brilliantly funny if somebody at Affinity even decided files shouldn't be backwards compatible now so there's an another voice to this harmonious choir

Just open the file It's just artboards and images and nothing else that's in newer versions. It's pretty much backwards compatible with versions from 2017. I changed that decimal setting when you told me, there are four decimal places visible and I saw that the width was "1331,5" or some not complete number like that so I squished and transformed the images to all be an even whole number and I aligned them and the "X", and "Y", and "Width" and "Height" positions are whole numbers now. The issue is still happening. Aldo be it, it's not anymore when exporting. But still, let's say we started at the left side, and the image width was 254,543 pixels. And lets say I aligned a next image, SNAPPED it, and the next image STARTS at the coordinates 254,543PX and ends at 354,543PX. The program should have no gaps between the two, yet it has. And the snapping tool should automatically snap objects together to literally the same position, like the magnet icon implies. This is so wonderful! This is a combination of a faulty magnet tool, faulty snapping, faulty number rounding, faulty decimal display, faulty antialiasing, they all sing in harmony! Check the file if you can.

I even now rounded the sizes up to a nice whole number and the issue is still here. Providing the file now TEST.afdesign

Here's how I'm doing it and it's kinda showing up

Can you also figure out why did my “iOS 7” images at the top have a gap as well? All images had the same dimensions, I created a new document by opening one image, and then extending the crop 3X until it snapped to the third image. I also did it via new document and put a 3X scale to a round number inside width, and I also did it via artboards, in all cases, there was a gap between three perfectly aligned images in a whole pixel document with no “mm” or other stuff. This is something I shouldn’t be worrying about. And how the heck is this not applied to drop shadows as in the masterclass icon i worked on?!!!

Everywhere there are any objects in any format at any scale at any resolution at any device at any program in any document under any circumstances, if snapped right next to one another, should be right next to one another… Import export raster pdf svg vector, anywhere there are two things next to one another, even in the real world, they should be next to one another. I don’t realize how can anything otherwise be acceptable, especially as crutial as this

but it shouldn’t work like that… objects next to one another should be next to one another... when an iphone 4 loses signal due to the way you’re holding the phone (covering the antenna lines), the proper respose is not “you’re holding it wrong”, its “lets fix it”

i’m going to cry BTW Didnt know about that png and supersampling, is there an option to do that WHILE working within illustrator??? Not just the raster export option??

Of course it can and of course I did approach it and finish my job a few months ago, but if you use symbols for example to do easy symmetry, like in my case that inset flap in the white paper wrap, i duplicated the object as a symbol so i need to only adjust one side of that cutout, and the other mirrors it (to have an easier symetry workflow). I need the objects to be print size, i cant reduce them for display purposes. Adding a white box at the top of the area isnt a solution because now theres a white bump visible because of an another antialiasing issue, and now the top and bottom edge arent flat anymore. Joining the two shapes together isnt a solution, I need to only adjust the left half and the right to update symetrically and automatically. Like, as I said I finished my work but it was such a pain in my rear that I actually gave a thought about going to this forum to write about it. This needs to be solved and this is nuts.

With any raster there is a gap, and with vector file formats the infinite zoom paradox is happening. Rasters include JPG PNG TIFF ETC and vectors PDF SVG and other stuff. Tried and true for years now, on all platforms, Windows Mac and iPad.

I can have an awful lot of fun trying to figure out "why" is this a mistake, "what" am I doing wrong and "how" can I quickly patch this, but let's all be honest here, a great and amazing design app would die and not move unless it has something as crucial as this figured out. I don't know how to solve it. But I am also unable to figure out how, in the 21st century, three aligned images can't align properly without a seem between them (and NO, its not milimeters, its literally a document the same pixel image size taken from Apple's website). How have they made it without a seem? This can't be put under a rug. I have, without knowledge of this thread existing, wrote this article about multiple of instances of issues like this This happened on Photoshop and Illustrator too and it drives me nuts for years since I started doing design. I just can't believe I'll have to pray Apple develops design software, or something. Isn't there anything that could be done technically regarding this? Nothing? Doing seventy thousand different tricks with blendmodes blendranges what-so-forth and aligning and going into settings and doing blah and this and that and this and that just to align three images without a seem running through them is kinda insane to me.

See…it doesnt export with precise clipping for me…unless that checkbox is ticked

Thanks a lot! Is this available on iPad? Still not solving this very huge issue, but its so much better now Do you happen to know why isnt this on deafult?

Related

Completely unaware that this topic exists, I have created this one with even a possible suggestion how this could be implemented in the UI.

This multieffects stuff could be ever so useful. Im thinking back to my math homework from a few months ago, those sunny highlights would be so much easier to do.