Jump to content

JET_Affinity

Members
  • Content count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JET_Affinity

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

341 profile views
  1. The biggest problem I had at first exposure was yet another "trendy" blacked-out treatment adopted by far too many graphics programs (including Adobe's) a few years ago, which is about as dumb for serious graphics work as it is for the pirate dress-up "biker" segment of motorcycling. Thankfully, Serif provided a retrieve from that hopefully short-lived fad in response to user demand. There are no doubt as many opinions about the graphical design of the interface as there are designers. Personally, I'd love to see a seriously-capable drawing program designed to look seriously down-to-business, with emphasis on clean, unobtrusive functional clarity devoid of distracting gratuitous eye candy. But mainstream drawing programs are designed to look "friendly" and "inviting" to casual hobbyists and "technically capable" to professional users at the same time. The balance of wide appeal is a narrow tightrope. Overall, the Affinity design compares pretty well against current competitors in the same segment, and there are plenty of far more "childishly" confusing offenders even in "higher end" software (ever worked with Solidworks, for example? Great program, but hideously garish runaway icon-crazy interface.) So I don't have any huge problem with Affinity's graphic design, but for one element: The "cogs" preview icons of the Style palette. Because they are large and randomly colorful (both consequences of their purpose), they disproportionally dominate the presentation when the program is first launched, and more than any other single element do give an initial "kid stuff" impression that's out-of-sync with the rest of the interface and belies the sophistication level of the program. JET
  2. JET_Affinity

    Affinity Publisher - Sneak Preview

    I'm kind of expecting $50. JET
  3. When the Pen Tool is active, you can put it in "straight line mode" by clicking the straight path button in the options bar at the top of the window. That makes the Pen act much like the separate Line Tool in Illustrator. (Someone had to point it out to me, too.) JET
  4. I can't wait for the chronically-repeating threads in which newcomers ask why they can't position curve handles precisely where they want them, and have to be told to turn off that snap. It's not uncommon to want to replicate the angles and lengths of curve handles across multiple nodes. But snapping curve handles to the grid is a crude way of accomplishing that. JET
  5. Frankly, I see it as an unnecessary "comfort level" crutch for those new to drawing Bezier paths, and as I recall, that was the intent when it was originally added to other programs. But it's a false one in that it only actually predicts the next segment if the next node will have no curve handle. And it just adds visual clutter if you are working with automatic alignment guides turned on. You've already added the "redrag" keyboard shortcut. The video clip doesn't show its being used in the context of moving the node currently being placed during mousedown, but I assume it will do that, as in other programs. That does accurately predict the shape of the resulting segment in all cases, whether a handle has been dragged out during mousedown or not. On that topic, although I can sometimes make use of the redrag shortcut, I still winced a little bit when I saw it's being added. Many do not realize that the spacebar press is necessary in Adobe Illustrator just to overcome the infernal insistence of its Pen Tool auto-joining to endpoints of pre-existing paths. (The Pen is not a selection tool, and has no business affecting unselected paths. As of CS6, that stumbling-block behavior cannot be turned off in prefs. In other words, it's mostly a cumbersome workaround for a poorly designed behavior. For anyone not getting this: It's a very common circumstance when drawing Bezier paths to want to start or end an independent path at the endpoint of a pre-existing path, without joining to it. So in Illustrator, to do that, you mousedown the Pen somewhere you don't want the path you are drawing to begin or end, press the Spacebard, drag the Pen to where you do want the current anchor to be placed, mouse up, and then release the Spacebar. Utter nonsense. But I wince more strongly at the "rubber band" preview thing, because I consider it useless, and just another example of wanting ill-conceived interface elements "like Illustrator." Illustrator's is the worst-of-class interface. It is largely why beginners find vector drawing to be more bewildering than it really is. But those who've never used anything other than the conventional-wisdom "leader" don't know that. Sorry for the sermon. I just want Affinity to jealously guard its elegance. JET
  6. If this is implemented, it should be a user-preference setting, as it is in some other apps. I personally find it annoyingly distracting, as many who "cut their vector drawing teeth" without it no doubt do. JET
  7. JET_Affinity

    Scripting Support (again)

    Please speak for yourself, not others. I dare say most of the best Javascripts for Illustrator are written by individual illustrators who actually understand what they need the script to do for illustration, not just as project workflow automation, whether they are working as independent freelancers or as drones in a corporate graphics sweatshop. I've done both and have quite a handy collection of unique AI scripts myself, but quit investing time in developing them as soon as Adobe forced its Captive Customers sales model. So while I can be counted among those most desiring a JavaScript API and object model for Affinity, I am not willing to pay hundreds of dollars for each license for just that feature. It's the same fallacy evident in Adobe's customer-abusing pricing. Adobe wants to pursue a more "corporate" entrenched (i.e. habitually dependent) customer base regardless of the impact on the individual and small-company skilled creatives who historically created the demand for Adobe products within the corporations they worked for in the first place. I lived through that. It was (and in many companies no doubt still is) a common scenario; a constant battle in which graphics creatives hired into the company's advertising or marketing departments have to escalate needs to upper management in order to compel IT to obtain and support the specific tools with which they are proficient. If corporate IT departments had had their way, we'd all be using Microsoft applications for graphics (and command-line interfaces for handling data). But things have changed in the three-and-a-half decades since the "desktop publishing revolution." 2D graphics is not rocket science anymore. The simple fact is, Adobe and its sibling competitors from back then are still trapped in an outdated pricing model, which I doubt strategies like customer-manipulative subscription-based pricing are going to perpetuate. The customer base is not going to put up with having—as you say—a knife held to their throats for long. Companies rise dramatically at the beginning of a "new paradigm" and can diminish just as quickly when what they offer becomes commonplace. Frankly, there's no justification any more for the prices of Illustrator, Draw, Canvas (and FreeHand, the best of the original "Big Four" was acquired and removed by Adobe). There are newer and more reasonable business models delivering excellent 2D vector drawing apps. Serif is on that. Yeah, Affinity definitely needs its own ECMA implementation. But it doesn't have to cost $400 a pop. I'm working on educating myself in Python in hopes of creating some scripted Inkscape solutions for axonometric drawing. Gravit Designer is not open-source, but still free, and it, too, is already pursuing a Python-based scripting solution. And I suspect Serif knows all of that. I trust Serif is clever enough to recognize the importance of a scripting model. But it would be premature to build it when much of the core functionality that will further differentiate Affinity from the status quo is still under development. JET
  8. It works fine on my desktop machine and on my Surface Pro, both running current version Windows 10. JET
  9. I don't care to see anything akin to the cheezy Cube Tool in Inkscape as an excuse for a converging perspective solution. Things like that are far less than the depth of the parallel perspective axes and grids feature previewed in this thread. I'm sure that if a converging perspective feature is planned for Affinity, it will be worth waiting for. Frankly, I find the software-independent concept of Lazy Nezumi Pro more sophisticated. Have you tried that? You may be surprised at the construction you can do with it in a vector drawing program. In Affinity, just set the Pen to Line Mode and start drawing your perspective rays. JET
  10. The better term is "object blends," to not confusion with transparency effects and modes. JET
  11. Ben, If path A is normally selected, and path B has a subset of its Nodes selected, can the selected Nodes of path B be aligned to the bounds of Path A? Or does that have to be done in two steps (aligning the sub-selected Nodes of path B, and then use snap construction guides to drag them into alignment to the bounds of Path A? Also, if all of the nodes of a path are selected, can they be aligned? Or does an alignment just behave as if the path is selected at the object level, and not at the Nodes level? JET
  12. Not likely. It's been requested for decades. JET
  13. Nice, Ben. I hope everyone knows that the sensible, useable polygon behavior of this is absent in the Lasso Tool in Adobe Illustrator (even though its raster version has long been present in Photoshop). However, does this not work if the path(s) are not already selected? And it's not limited to one path, correct? JET
  14. BrightBold, No offense, but almost everyone says that about his/her most desired feature. As just one individual example, another "me, too" autotrace feature is not even on my list of desired features. I almost never use one, there are plenty of them out there (even free ones), and they all do pretty much the same thing (which I expect is unlikely to change unless and until an affordable one acquires some measure of shape recognition intelligence). That doesn't make me "right" or you "wrong," but as has been explained, it's on the planned features list. But priorities are up to the developers. I would imagine that sometimes features are inter-dependent, and have to be developed in sequence. JET
  15. Right. So just seeing the area value for each lets you determine the needed scale factor. If I have four objects with areas of 225, 275, 300, and 265, and want the first three to be scaled to have the same area as the last, I can simply key "*265/225" in either of the first's size fields to scale it by 118%, enter "*265/275" to scale the second by 96%, and "*265/300" to scale the third by 88%. JET
×