GripsholmLion

We should have a way to measure the length of curves. The current measurement tools work great but they are limited, I sometimes need to measure curves that must match with a different shape curve but with the same length, forcing me to walk both curves until I see if they match or not. This process can get very slow the more complex the curve gets. It would be great to know the length of a curve just by clicking on it.

Yes, but I have Windows because I don't know some features of Affinity softwares how works on Mac OS and iPad or not works. If variable font support is a missing feature on Mac OS and iPad it have to add too these platforms.

It's amazing how such  small things do wonders in Photoshop.      Affinity in-painting  creates  lots of repeating  details or sometime just copy a piece  from super close around  doing doubled details.        So I rather use patch tool  but it's pretty inconvenient either.
No flip, no deform to match certain image patterns   .    Would also like the patch tool would deal  with transparency same as  other rgb. (as an option) 

Hi y'all!
So I'm currently working on my thesis layout via publisher (going great, btw). One of the aspects is accessible design in printing. So I was wondering - wouldn't it be great to be able to test-view the document in different color-blindness modes? Or even visual-impairment? I know there is workarounds for this.
I just believe preparing good tools in-software to produce accessible design shows how much the company behind the tool values or at least acknowledges these principles.
What do you think?
Linda

It's a rotation handle.🙄
@nickbatz There is also an option in the settings to increase the size of tool handles, which include the rotation handle.
It's available in all three apps: APh, ADe, APub.
There are 4 sizes available: (A) Small, (B) Default, (C) Medium, (D) Large.

This is what the handles will look like, including the rotation handle that you particularly care about on the canvas.

 
 
 

Is your insult intentional or inadvertent?
Yes, there are features in the program I don't know about. I've been graced with many talents, but memorizing every single word of a manual for a complicated program isn't among them!

Solved by grouping and applying the blend if to the group
 
 

Hi SK89,
Unfortunately there is no way to tell which brush was used to create a specific stroke etc however this has been requested a few times in the past so it may be considered for a future update
Thanks
C

I am not arguing about this. But I am curious about how you and/or others would like to see this implemented and/or what workarounds work for you and/or others. IOW, I see this as just a discussion, not an argument.
In that spirit, I wonder how close to the desired function the Recent brushes popup on Pixel layers in the Layers panel might be. It just shows the (final) pixel brush size(s) & thumbnail(s) of the brushes recent used, & it only does so for the current session. It does not show brush names so for instance it would be almost impossible to tell the difference among many of the built-in Pen brushes just from their thumbnails.
It gets even more complicated when using pressure-sensitive input devices because so many different brush variables could be changing dynamically just in one stroke, & I don't see any obvious way for the thumbnails to show that, but maybe someone else has an idea how it could work.

Out of curiosity how do you manage to turn everything into an argument?

I don't know what this thing is called, but when you use the Move tool, it's the little dot attached to the bounding box, the thing you grab to rotate the selected layer.
Would that it were more visible so you don't have to zoom in to find it - which I find myself doing every time.
Quick - where is it in this screenshot (which is already zoomed way in)?
TIA

 

There's a small linguistic issue in the character panel. I suggest "Hide unsupported features" instead of "Hide irrelevant features". It's all about the semantics. If the intention is to remove features that cannot be used due to technical constraints, "Hide unsupported features" would be more accurate. However, if the purpose is to remove features that are not relevant to the user's current work, even though they are technically supported, then "Hide irrelevant features" is more appropriate. But that is not the case, eh?
"Hide irrelevant features" suggests that the program will conceal OpenType features that are not relevant to the current text or font. This implies a focus on the user's context, hiding features that, while technically supported, are not applicable or useful in the current situation. For instance, it might hide features specific to different languages or scripts that aren't relevant to the user's current task.
"Hide unsupported features", on the other hand, indicates that the program hides features that are not supported by the current font or the text processing software. This is a more technical approach, referring to the limitations of the software or font, rather than the relevance to the user's task.
In return, this option evidently appeared to be irrelevant for mention in the online help. 🫥

Personally I prefer files to be saved to the same location I used previously, rather than wherever they were opened from. I don't want to have to keep changing it back to the location I've chosen.

Hi @zapzapzap, I've worked for years with SVG's created by Affinity for intensive interactive usages on the web where I used the SVG's and changed/read/rewrote them using code. Like interactive animations and interactive maps etc.
A few things to note about this:
- There's no need to have the matrix transforms in the SVG output. You can turn these off by checking 'Flatten Transforms' in the SVG export settings


As for the units used I have to tell that I've never needed to put Affinity into any unit other than pixels because of my work, so can't tell you for sure, but I'm pretty sure that the units used in the outputted SVG are always in pixels. If not I'm sure somebody else here will correct me on that.

I don't know how far your knowledge of the SVG format goes, but it's probably not how you think it works, but that's only guessing by what you write in the text.
The rectangle you point at for instance, is not in pixels, but in units of the svg as defined in the 'viewBox' attribute of the SVG element around it.
The viewBox is optional and can be turned on or off, but normally this is turned on because it's SCALABLE vector Graphics and this box is needed for the scaling part.
The viewBox is basically a window that you place over the graphics inside the SVG which defines what to show from the SVG. This box can not only be moved all over your graphics, but also scale your graphics.
This is important to know, because this means that the values like width and height and x an y everywhere in your SVG (like in the rectangle) are NOT absolute values, but relative to this viewBox. The viewBox defines how all these values are used and can scale all these values up and down, or move them left, right, up or down.

BTW to make it even more complicated there is also an attribute which defines HOW things are scaled when used. And how to set the aspect ratio and what to do with the content when aspect ratio of the target/screen etc. is not the same as the svg. That's a whole other subject, but that also influences the measurements of the content inside the svg as output.

As for the DPI, I'm pretty sure that SVG's generated by Affinity are always using DPI 72. At least that's the way when copying things to the clipboard. But I'm not 100% sure about that one because because of the scaling nature of SVG I never needed to know the DPI as it's scalable to begin with.
[edit] Although in the SVG export settings I see a setting called 'Use document resolution'. I think though that is only used for the raster images if exported to the svg, but I'm not sure.

But I don't know anything about using SVG with real measurements for things like laser cutters or alike, so I can't tell you anything about how all the info in the SVG is used, ignored or handled. And even wouldn't know if it's the right format for those kind of jobs or just not meant for it.
Another advise I could give though is; did you try exporting to PDF or EPS and see if that works better for your use case? That might be a better format for the things you need, but that's pure guessing of my side. Could be worth a try. Because I think SVG isn't really meant for this kind of things and was more made as an output format for internet AFAIK because of its scalable nature.

Anyway, hope this still makes any sense and somewhat helps.

Hi @Hangman,
Looks like this is an OS-specific bug in V2 on Monterey, as i'm able to replicate this using your examples provided on Monterey consistently for the first instance but not whatsoever on Sonoma.
I've now logged this with the developers. 🙂

I started noticing this in the last few days. A particular editing task and a change in how I would go about it combined to reveal it, so I don't know how long the bug has existed. It may not always occur consistently, as I could not make it happen deliberately every single time. I'm also stuck on Monterrey.

I haven't tested any of the discussed and uploaded files but in case my experience might be of help:
My linked (large) file in AD desktop was very pixelated after rasterizing the layer and I thought it was just a display issue. When I opened it on AP ipad I had the same pixelation issue there. So I checked the original file in AD again, links were all correct but the file stayed pixelated. 
What worked for me was:
I embedded the linked file (in my case that was on AD Desktop/Mac) Pixelation was still visible but I zoomed in very closely and waited for AD to calculate the full resolution, which it did! Only AFTER the resolution of my embedded file was displayed correctly I rasterized the embedded file to one layer  Saved the document Opened on AP ipad .. tadaa, high resolution  It seems like Affinity uses the image preview as a basis for the real data? And when the preview is not fully calculated the export doesn't work either? Please correct me if I draw the wrong conclusion here but if it's right, I hope it will be fixed soon.
At least I am glad I found a way to make it work for me for now, hope it works for others as well!
Cheers,
Devendra

Hi @GripsholmLion
Thanks for your report, I can confirm this occurs with Keyboard Navigation or Full Keyboard Access enabled. However it is working fine with these options are turned off.  

It's the start of 2024 and still no news about a width tool. We're still missing a lot of stuff, like true vector brushes, an erase tool and most of all, the width tool. I found it funny that pretty much every single vector app there is, has some sort of width tool, whereas us, are still waiting for one. The day Designer gets its width tool, will be the day I'll switch 100% to Designer. Right now, I'm pretty much forced to still using Illustrator because of that.

Hehe, yes, maybe that should be my alias. But on the subject, I work with a company that supplies products to us. One of the leaders, who is an outstanding and esteemed leader, tells his teams: 'You are allowed to make mistakes, but you must not make the same mistake twice.' Of course, we are not talking about tiny errors here.
When companies consistently make the same mistakes against all trends, knowledge, and feedback, I see no reason to phrase myself as a subject before a king. For when things are going poorly, it's not up to me as a customer to motivate the company. It's the circumstances and shortcomings. And here, the many fanboys surrounding the mythical 'devs' as tribal chiefs and at the same time casting a smokescreen over those who genuinely need the product to improve, do not help.
If there's one thing that has benefited my career and professionalism, it is that I have listened and adjusted to the wishes and criticisms of customers and colleagues. I am used to criticism of any kind, and occasionally I have spent days understanding that the criticism or desires for change were justified. I simply had to view the problem from different angles, listen, and gather more facts.
I have long since grown beyond focusing on the form and more on the content, whether the feedback is good or bad. My impression of Serif is that they also handle honest discussions well. And that's how it should be, so I can express myself in a way that makes my joy or frustrations clearly visible. Notice that it's the users here in the forum who are thin-skinned, not Serif.
I also like Designer, but I'm tired and frustrated by the mistakes Serif keeps making against all known knowledge and feedback, year after year. Clearly, I'm not alone in this perception.
By the way, you are not described, either indirectly or directly, in the above. 🙂

I fully understand your frustration. I'm fortunate enough to have Photoshop in my toolset, so I don't encounter this image-pixel issue in Photo, which recurs over and over again. I remember it all too clearly.
However, I'm afraid that Serif has moved - and you who are affected by this totally opaque and almost uncommunicated difference - into really deep waters. The lack of automation and usability is a huge problem here. Automated conversion will probably be just as extreme. I think that Serif needs to embark on a really UX-driven rethinking of concept and user interface regarding image and pixel layers.
I remember - and occasionally discover in Designer - that many features require one thing or another to work - but don't communicate that when you try to perform an operation on it. The user interface is no help.
Apologists and fanboys defending this very theoretical construct are of no help either, nor is the need to learn the programs as if it were GIMP. It's incredible how people can so fervently defend a concept that has resulted in so many support requests here.
The most elementary mistakes are made right on the surface. I paste something into Affinity. The first term, image, doesn't suggest much. To transform it into pixels, I have to choose rasterize; now we're up to three terms the customer must fully understand how works in Affinity. Don't try to convince me that the small object type icon makes the customers significantly wiser. The very few visual hints are barely noticeable, while the textual is pure engineering jargon. "Convert to pixels" would be fine or "Render as Pixels".
This user interface and journey in Photo are not designed by genuine and professional UX designers. The architecture and user interface are cobbled together with elastic bands from the 80s.

@PaulEC thanks for your reply. I am not trying to do anything differently. I'm attempting to make a basic function easy for myself.
Do you know how best to use the Colour picker and Flood Fill tool with an Image layer? As far as I can tell using the Colour Picker and Flood Fill tool behaves as expected with a pixel layer but with an Image layer these tools seem to behave differently. I may well have missed something. Just humbly seeking help on this. And as for your comment, I'm using Affinity Photo here. I mentioned Gimp by way of comparison which I think is completely valid.

Hi,
I'm using the version 2.3.1 of the Affinity Suite for MacOS.
When implementing a svg-file exported from any of the software in the suite into a HTML document I want to be able to control the svg file with CSS - eg stroke widths, colors, fills and so on. With svg files exported from any of the software form Affinity Suite this is not possible. The only thing I can control with CSS is the image size due to the fact that the exported svg file contains internal css that has to be stripped in an text editor before styling with CSS is possible.
The only "solution" I've found as of yet (besides opening every svg in a text editor and strip away internal CSS) is to open the svg file in Adobe Illustrator and export it again with the box "Presentation mode" ticked and only THEN I'm finally able to control the svg file as intended.
I've attached 2 files exported from both Affinity Pulbisher and Adobe Illustrator Also attached are screen shots with export settings from both softwares. Just to be clear, a svg file exported from affinity software works on a web page but is not controllable with CSS besides the image size.


I have several hundreds of icons made in svg format for print already and instead of me opening up the svg files in a text editor, stripping them of the styles and then upload into the CMS for the CSS to work it's magic it would be nice if they, as one already can in illustrator, could just open the files in Affinity and export the svg "For Web" and the work would be done further convincing everybody of the excellence of Affinity and move forwards to make the software switch from Adobe.
Final thought..
Wouldn't it be nice though, if one could open all these svg-files up in Affinity and batch export them "For Web" in one nice sweep?
affinity.svg illustrator.svg

But the subject of the post is disabling the export preview, so that is what the responses should be about. There is nothing to stop Bob opening a new post venting their spleen about their dislike of V2 GUI in general.

I see I'm dealing with a fanboy.
Link to the article corrected. It was "Redesigned with you in mind: the all-new Affinity V2 UI" on Affinity Spotlight.
Blending of the background color of the text box with the panel itself↓

Inconsistent tab shapes when activ or hover. (Panel groups, panels - trapezoid shape vs rectangle shape)↓

Poor pixelated previews (Preset panel)↓

Different spacing beween value input and increase/decrease arrows.

@Pšenda I can do this all day long.