Herbert123

What I never understood is why Adobe requires the user to enter selection transform mode in the first place. And then that horrible little dialog pops up when switching tools and selection transform mode is active: Or the user is first required to hit the [enter] key to confirm. Terrible, terrible. I think that is a real workflow-breaker. Why not display transform selection handles at all times instead when switching to the selection tools? And when I enter quick mask mode, I cannot move or transform the selection directly without switching to transform mode again, and continuously confirming those transformations. Forget to hit that [enter] key, and the above transformation dialog pops up once again. Sigh.

I am in the same boat. I use the distort tools in other applications on an almost daily basis, and I find it a bit odd that such a fundamental function still has not been implemented. It does indeed limit my use of AD at this point. So strange to see terrific isometric grid options, but no method to distort flat designs in order to align them to those same grids!

I agree - this has been discussed before, I believe. Something similar along these lines would be nice (and please no Adobe-derived text rulers, please!):

1) I created it in an alternative non-Adobe vector/bitmap application that does support both warping/distortion of vector and bitmap images, as well as offers an option to keep the corners consistent. (please refer to earlier posts of mine from a couple of months ago for the name of this application - I have promised the moderators not to mention it or other direct competitors here anymore). 2) No, I encountered the same issue when I first checked out the Mac version of AD: there does not seem to be any way to distort graphics in perspective. Until such a feature is added to the tool set, my use of AD is rather limited. I had hoped that this would have been added by now - the devs did mention a distortion tool in their road-map about 18 months ago. Having said all this, I do love the isometric grid options in AD - those are really useful, and I fire up AD at times to get access to those. I do wish they would include a true perspective grid as well, though, and with an option to distort graphics via that grid. That would be an awesome addition.

Time does not stand still - even 3d software like Blender now offers (vector based) freehand drawing tools, and the one thing that stands out are the excellent sculpting tools to affect existing lines with custom fall-offs and free transformation pivot points. A bit like the traditional bitmap warp tools on steroids. Check these videos out: I think it is time that vector illustration software developers start to rethink their traditional tool set at this point in time. All 3d software offers sculpting tools nowadays, and this makes the creative process MUCH easier, fluid, and intuitive. 2d vector illustration encounters similar challenges compared to 3d modeling - sculpting took 3d asset creation to the next level, and is now adapted industry-wide as a fundamental workflow. How about AD offering similar sculpting tools to the 2d illustrator, and taking 2d vector creative illustration tools into the 21st century? :)

Been a bit on a hiatus with AD these last couple of months, and I had expected a simple distort or warp tool would have been implemented by now? Seems like this ought to be part of an illustration package's fundamental tool set, in my opinion. I would not be able to switch to AD for vector work without it. So I'd like to add my voice in here: please add it. At the very least allow the user to CTRL-drag a corner point to distort the object.

well, your Illustrator version is not true perspective either, which would take the actual stroke into account as well. :-P All jokes aside, I agree it would be very helpful if AD supports keeping the corners consistent. Other applications can do this, and working without this option is a bit of a pain at times.

Blender supports direct vector export with a SVG plugin and through its freestyle non-realistic renderer. For free. Both can be combined in AF Designer to create shading and great looking edges. Also important: each edge of a 3d object can be manually controlled for vector output, making it extraordinary powerful for technical illustrations. In this sense it is rather more powerful than Illustrator's 3d extrude and revolve functions. No limits as to the shapes of the 3d objects either. And if you need textures, one option is to render out a bitmap of the fills, and combine these with SVG line art. The SVG export plugin generates this out of the box (pure SVG): The freestyle SVG plugin is aimed at line art export (extremely simple example): And why not combine the vector strokes with the bitmap render: The only drawback: you will have to learn a bit about using Blender (loads of tutorials, though!). Or export as a pure SVG with patterned fills: Or a semi-transparent SVG wire:

Not a dream: it is indeed possible to work with the native image at the highest resolution in two alternative layer-based image editors via smart objects, for example. Node-based compositors work the same way as well. It is really a liberating and forgiving way to work, and I hope Affinity will allow for this at some point.

Here are examples of possible roughen effects that work on vector shapes. In the two applications that I used to create these, the effects remain live and can be stacked for combinations. These should provide food for thought for the developers.

Clyde: Have you tried Clip Studio Paint EX yet? Specifically designed and developed for comics work, Clip Studio Paint EX might be your (potentially ideal) software: it specifically supports 1bit 1200ppi raster layers and 600ppi (or lower) full colour or greyscale layers. And vector layers as well (which are translated to raster in the final output). Full support for page management, panelling, tones, etc.

While the curve dialogs are bigger than the equivalent ones in Photoshop and most other applications, it would be great if these dialogs could be scaled manually by the user. At times a very large curve dialog may be helpful in managing very fine and controlled adjustments. In Designer the adjustment layers cannot be displayed while working on other things - am I correct? It would be nice if the adjustment layer panel could be kept visible on the screen.

Currently pop-up panels and dialogs do not recall their position. For example, an adjustment layer's pop-up panel in Designer always positions itself at the bottom of the screen near the layer panel's bottom area, even when I double-click the adjustment layer's thumbnail in the layers panel at the top. This is a bit inflexible and inefficient. It would be nice if these dialogs remember their position after they were moved to a different location on the screen.

Those extension panels are utterly reliant on the Photoshop scripting framework, and therefore just about impossible to implement in a different application. The developers would have to emulate Photoshop's scripting and GUI frameworks, as well as all its functions, which is a somewhat ridiculous thought. A better solution would be if Affinity designer and Photo would receive their own scripting environment instead, which would empower Affinity users to extend the applications themselves. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware a scripting interface is not (yet?) supported. Of note here: the most requested feature that received the most user votes at the end of this year's Krita Kickstarter: a scripting interface. https://krita.org/en/item/and-done/ In a nutshell: a scripting interface allows all of us users to write our own extensions and functions. To automate stuff. To create new tools. And so on. It is a bit of a shame that scripting was not added right from the start in Affinity - but here is hoping the devs have it on their things-to-implement list. It is NOT an easy thing to implement, though.

Filter Forge is a great plugin (I use it myself), but Chrono is correct: having access to a couple of procedural texture generators, even basic ones, is an incredibly worthwhile and useful addition for all sorts of work and these procedural textures often serve as a base for a multitude of effects and compositing work. Here is an example of a built-in procedural texture editor for inspiration. Clouds and basic noise generators are just the start. These could also be tremendously useful for Designer. The point is that these would be infinitely adjustable and applicable as live effects as well.

When I rasterize a vector layer that lies partly outside the canvas, and rasterize that layer, it results in a rasterized version that is cut off. Is it possible to prevent this behaviour?

In the latest beta applying a custom curve still results in the same stepping. @TonyB: I made a stupid mistake when I sent you that demo file - in that other application the stroke, when set to zero pixels (coloured hairline) will cause strong rendering issues when applied with a embossing layer effect. Either turn off the hairline colour altogether, or increase the stroke width to at least 3~5px. The quality is very good in that case - arguably much of an improvement over Designer's custom curve embossing. It may still require a bit of smoothing - but not much. Often the basic quality is good enough to continue to work with in the other application, but sometimes I will put a larger version in a placeholder ("smart object") or a cloned layer, and then scale down to remove the final small quality issues. The odd thing is that the quality in Designer keeps shifting when the user zooms in and out - zoom in, and Designer will increase the number of steps (which are still quite visible). Zoom out, and the number of steps are reduced. I also tried creating a large rasterized version in Designer, and scaling it down - but the steps are still quite visible, unfortunately. The only method I found that mitigates this is by creating a mask of the bevel only, and smoothing it manually. I hope some kind of option will be added to reduce the stepping (increasing the number of steps?) and smoothly interpolate between them at some point.

Another option: Blender & Freestyle SVG output. If anyone is interested, I can put up a small video tutorial. And it works with any type of 3d object, of course :-) The only caveat is that the generated SVG files must be opened and saved in Inkscape before the file is compatible with Designer's SVG import (other applications have issues with these SVG files as well, btw). The edges that must be converted to curves can be marked specifically. True 3d spheres at your fingertips! :D I have attached a Designer file for anyone who wishes to inspect the curves.. spheres_freestyle.afdesign

Thanks Matt. One thing at a time :-)

Hi Matt, I decided that a neutral tone would be more useful in any case - I edited the gradient post, and it reads more like a feature request now, or GUI/UX critique. I feel that is a more effective approach. And I will mention other products when it makes sense to do so. Thanks & cheers, H

As far as I am able to ascertain, Designer lacks an option to fit a dashed stroke to the corners, which automatically adjusts when the object is resized. It would be an extremely useful feature to have. Like this:

+1. WebP has gained enough traction to warrant the inclusion as an export format.

The reason why I mention Photoline a lot is because I use it every day in my freelance work (after switching from Photoshop), and I am actively looking for a good Illustrator alternative and InDesign alternative. I probably stand out because not many users work with Photoline (as a matter of fact, I believe I stand alone as an outspoken Photoline user on these forums) - had I mentioned Illustrator and Photoshop in those posts instead for the sake of comparison (which far more users on these forums tend to do), you probably would not have noticed it. Photoline is my base line, so to speak. For most others it will be Illustrator. And I often do mention a variety of other software products as well besides Photoline. Although Photoline does vector, it is focused on bitmap editing (more of a Photoshop competitor) - even so, I find that it offers a number of features in terms of vector editing (similar to Illustrator) that seem rather basic to me, and are still missing in Designer. And when I compare Designer with Photoline, I do this in the hope that the dev team will take note of this, and improve Designer. Because I WANT a complete & strong Illustrator competitor. If I was not clear about this, let me state it this way: I have used just about every single vector illustration package on the market since Illustrator 3 and the first version of Freehand - commercial, open source, and freeware. Currently I use InkScape in combination with Photoline. InkScape is quite okay, but not within the realms of Illustrator. I have used Xara and CorelDraw as well, but only with Designer do I get a good "vibe". I want Affinity Designer to become the vector app to compete with Illustrator, and it already feels better than Illustrator at this point. Still needs work, but it is getting there - and the work the devs put into improving Designer is very much appreciated indeed. I am unsure about the instances of dishonest comparisons/bug reporting. I do make mistakes, and I am still learning Affinity Designer myself. When I do compare to Photoline (or other applications), I do so because I feel the implementation of a certain tool works better than the one in Designer in its current form. As for this thread and my responses: none of those were meant in any spiteful manner - I converted a font after reading this thread, and I merely wondered about the reasons, and, as it turned out, it is a bug in the Windows version (and, to be fair, I did compare this in four software products, not only Photoline). When I posted the comparison with Photoline's gradient widgets the other day, I did so not from the perspective of "selling" Photoline, but merely to demonstrate that Designer's implementation is somewhat clunky compared. Better than most, but it can still be improved quite a bit in my opinion. I compare singular features which could/should be improved in Designer, and be made more convenient and effective to use. Designer has many vector drawing options that are missing in Photoline. And I've already begun to use those in Designer alongside Photoline. Now, if you ask me whether I would switch to Affinity Photo anytime soon? No chance at this point. Personally I think Photoline is still on another level in terms of pure image editing. Perhaps in the future, though - I am software agnostic. Whatever works best, and as long as subscriptions are kept out of the equation (which is the reason I stopped using Adobe software three years ago after being a loyal user since Photoshop 3). And no, I do not work for Photoline. If you take the long history of Photoline into account (since 1995), you will discover that almost no marketing whatsoever is done. Even now barely a designer is even aware it exists. So in this regard Serif has little to fear :-) You have done the Affinity marketing right. To push this point further: I teach at various colleges and a technical university, and I mentioned Affinity Designer to all my students when the Windows beta was released. I even gave a quick demonstration and told them AD is already a good alternative for those seeking a way out of the Adobe Digital Serfdom. In my Mac classes, I always mention AD and AP as alternatives (I tried this with Photoline too, but students like Affinity better - more fashionable, I suppose. The marketing helps :-P ) So, if anything Serif ought to have gotten business from at least some of my students by now. Anyway, I will stop mentioning any specific product as a point of comparison from this point onward. Only screenshots with alternative suggestions and workflows if I feel it could be useful - but no more product names. This is my last post mentioning Photoline in these forums. Pinky Promise! Finally, if I ever came across as condescending or putting down the efforts of Affinity devs, then I apologize humbly - that certainly is not, nor has ever been, my intention. I am a code hugger myself, and I understand the effort, sweat and tears that accompany coding. Pwah, long post.

Photoshop plugins come in one of two possible flavours. The first one is deemed "the classic Photoshop plugin". These typically have the extension *.8bf, and have a pretty high chance to work in non-Adobe software that supports Photoshop plugins. Examples are plugins such as Google NIK, FilterForge, and Topaz. The second flavour of Photoshop plugin completely relies on, and is entirely integrated in, Photoshop's functional framework. These are 100% incompatible with any other software, unless the entire framework of Photoshop would be emulated somehow. Which is a ridiculous thought, of course. You might have guessed by now: Quixel's suite of tools falls into the second category. It is indeed a devastating thought - the short of it is that Quixel is quite impossible to run outside the Photoshop environment. Quite, quite impossible, and it will never happen. Besides, to run Quixel, some kind of 3d OpenGL viewport is required. Which Affinity photo and Designer both lack. Sorry to be the bearer of such ignominiously rotten news. Should you still wish to leave Photoshop for 3d texturing work, your options are plentiful: 3dCoat, Substance Designer/Painter, Mari, and so forth. I predominantly do my texture painting work in 3dCoat.

ArionFX is a standard (classic) Photoshop plugin. As long as your image editor supports Photoshop plugins, and can handle 32bit per channel, ArionFX should work. It works without a problem in Photoline. In the latest beta of Photoline ArionFX even works as a non-destructive live effect (just like Photoshop smart filters!). Which means it should work in the upcoming Affinity Photo 1.5 with HDR/32bpc as well.