Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

ziplock9000

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    87

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

27 Neutral

See reputation activity

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1.    DylanGG reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  2. ziplock9000
    I have a feeling Serif wont use another API that works just fine on AMD cards that competitors already use either. Remember, competing products work just fine. Serif have just chosen to use the API that has poor performance. Seemingly even with V2.x of the suite The issue is mostly with them not AMD who provide a valid, working API. Again, let me repeat: Competing products work fine.
  3. ziplock9000
    That's grand and certainly in the right direction, but not confirmation of the situation with such a limited set of data points. For that we'd need a bigger data set and multiple combinations of graphics cards, driver and OS versions. A couple of data point is not 'confirmation' What ever problems AMD has had, the industry has found a way to work on their products just fine with GPU acceleration with a plethora of products from video editing, streaming and of course vector and bitmap design, while affinity notably hasn't. The problem is very much in Affinity's court when those other competing products work fine.
  4. ziplock9000
    I see a theory not confirmation from minimal testing. That would come from lot more testing and comments from serif themselves. We've been fooled before. Even if it DID work, it should have worked in version 1 as it was part of the product features that were sold to us a long time ago now.
  5. ziplock9000 started following AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration and Upgrading from V1 to V2
  6. ziplock9000
    What's worse is they took away some features from V1.x of Designer and blamed the reason on other companies, just for the feature to magically come back for V2 of the product. I've been signing the praises of these products to a lot of people over the years, now I wont be.
  7. ziplock9000
    So they have done the bait and switch and screwed over users of version 1 who have supported this product from the start. I thought it smelled fishy and didn't add up all of the excuses and blame they were putting on AMD Remember this is NOT a new feature, it was part of version 1. They have pulled it because they want to make it a selling point for v2. Serif, you've went from hero to zero with this terrible move.
  8.    KimHmrs reacted to a post in a topic: Affinity for Android
  9.    KimHmrs reacted to a post in a topic: Affinity for Android
  10. ziplock9000
    It's more than just a nice to have really. Graphics apps have had this basic functionality for over 3 decades.
  11.    ziplock9000 reacted to a post in a topic: Point Transform Tool - duplicate + mirror
  12. ziplock9000
    Exactly, we shouldn't have to duplicate, then go into a special point mode, then have to move the mouse back and forth 10 times to make sure it's -100% scale, then flip it. That's even when it does work, because as others have said it often does not.
  13.    ziplock9000 reacted to a post in a topic: Point Transform Tool - duplicate + mirror
  14.    Marco_C reacted to a post in a topic: Point Transform Tool - duplicate + mirror
  15. ziplock9000
    That's what I have, 5700XT Red Devil and I've had no issue with the many games I've played over the last ~2 year or with any GPU accelerated applications (of which I use a lot as a game developer). Affinity Designer is the ONLY software that has issues for me unfortunately.
  16.    ziplock9000 reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  17. ziplock9000
    Thank you!
  18.    ziplock9000 reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  19. ziplock9000
    I have a whole host of other GPU accelerated applications that run just fine on AMDs cards. Serif chose to use that API, they were not forced. After more than a year they still have not chosen an API that works like everyone else has. The problem is firmly in Serif's court far more than AMDs.
  20.    DenisD84 reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  21.    Old Bruce reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  22.    ziplock9000 reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  23.    Nox reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  24. ziplock9000
    It would have to be 10x more to account for the number of bugs but still have a 5% share; unlikely to the extreme really. In a proper development environment, the people working on the Windows version will be experienced in the Windows development ecosystem so that should not be an reason either.
  25.    ziplock9000 reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  26. ziplock9000
    They have always blamed AMD from the start. While there is an issue with the driver, developers of other products have not chosen to use this development path or have switch and have no issues. They choose to use a broken API and refuse to use another one that works. Because the issue has persisted for so long, the ball has firmly been in AF's court for a while now, not AMD. Poop analogy incoming warning: If I was a home decorator and the paint I had been using no longer works, I'd not keep telling my customers I can't paint their walls for over a year, I'd buy paint from another company. I'd also not tell customers to get another painter, just because I wont use paint from another company.
  27. ziplock9000
    GPU acceleration has been a thing for at least 15 years now, it's been a standard not optional in products that process video or graphics for a long time really. I use a lot of software products that use GPU acceleration and AF products are the only ones that have an issue with my AMD card.
  28.    ziplock9000 reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  29.    nitro912gr reacted to a post in a topic: AMD Radeon RX Hardware Acceleration
  30. ziplock9000
    Well lets be honest here, the vast majority of the people who have bought AF products did so because they are astronomically cheaper than Adobe products and do a similar job. Those people wont have 20-30 times that amount of money to buy new graphics cards or new computers just to run Affinity products. If they did, they would have stuck with Adobe products. Yes there are exceptions, but it's the low cost that brings almost everyone to AF products. Not totally related to what you've said, but slightly. It also addresses someone further up who was suggesting buying a new NVidia card for ~£1000 for a product that costs £25 when on sale. Crazy.
  31. ziplock9000
    I don't think it's anywhere near as low a percentage as that. Look at the number of posts on respective platforms and products for bugs. Yeah you could argue the Windows version is more buggy, but it would have to be 10x more buggy for 5% share which makes no sense and it's much more likely to be a very similar number of issues. Obviously only Affinity know the numbers, but it's not a tiny percentage like 5%
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept