Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JET_Affinity

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,446 profile views
  1. Yes, yet another example of Illustrator's not being the software to emulate. I was among those petitioning Adobe for years to provide access, within Illustrator's normal interface, to the 'secret' programmer's window that could be invoked if you knew the 'Easter egg' shortcut. So Adobe finally added it to the flyout menu of the Document Info panel, which you need to invoke twice to individually turn on the options Selection Only and Objects. Not exactly an intuitive or elegant GUI implementation. JET
  2. I have a total disdain for third-party plug-ins. For my money, it's a development model that failed decades ago. I refuse to become work-dependent upon them. I'd much rather see the development time dedicated to an Affinity-specific Javascript object model. JET
  3. When discussed as feature requests, please try to clarify what exactly is being requested. "Dimension Tools" should be a toolset for creating live dimension objects. Constructs consisting of witness lines, arrows, and text that updates when its parameters change. (Like in Corel Draw or Canvas.) A "Measure Tool" is often just a rather lame tool that one drags between two points of interest and then presents either some readout on screen or in a dialog or palette somewhere. (Like in Illustrator; in which, by the way, the Line Tool makes a far more useful 'Measure Tool' than the Measure Tool.) Access to any path's actual length (or area, angle, etc.) is yet another thing. I'm not claiming it's any kind of industry-standard substitute for actual Dimension Objects or for display of path lengths, etc. But for those needing an occasional dimension when drawing to scale, you can use the Point Transform Tool thusly: JET
  4. So long as its a user-defined preference. That's the problem: You're speaking of a specific task. I have no problem with your suggestion if implemented as a user-specified preference setting (although that raises the whole larger issue of Affinity's need for a seriously better preference interface.) Even then, you'd need to elaborate. For example, what do you consider the 'center' of an equilateral triangle? For most purposes, it's certainly not the center of its bounding box (which raises what I consider one of the most fundamental problems with Affinity: its insistence upon on-page transformations being based on infernal bounding boxes.) JET
  5. 'Till my dyin' day. For all the good it will do. JET
  6. So you can delete them? In Illustrator, if you alt-click a path with the Direct Selection Tool, it will select all the AnchorPoints of that path. But then tapping Delete deletes the whole path, not just the AnchorPoints. In Affinity, if you just select a path with the Node Tool, the nodes highlight, but no nodes are 'selected'. Nonetheless, tapping Delete still deletes the whole path. Or am I misunderstanding your intent? In Affinity, if the path(s) of interest are unselected and you want to select them with the Node tool and then move the whole path(s), you can: Click an un-selected path with the Node Tool (and shiftClick to select others). Tap Ctrl-A to 'select all'. That will select all the nodes of the highlighted path(s), but nothing else. OR Without changing tools, drag a marquee selection around highlighted path(s), or a portion of them. Doing this will not select other un-highlighted paths, even if they are fully within the selection marquee. Mousedown on any of the nodes to move the selection. So you can arguably do steps 1 and 2a within a second, too, once you're accustomed to it. The problem with Affinity's behavior in this regard is that, with a path already selected with the Move Tool, merely selecting the Node tool highlights all the path's nodes, but selects none of them (which is unintuitive to begin with), thereby changing the selection state of the current selection. To my mind, this is not justified. When a path is selected by the Move Tool, the whole path is selected (i.e., all its segments and nodes). That should not change by merely switching to a different selection tool. In other words, when a path is already selected by the Move Tool, switching to the Node Tool should leave all the nodes selected, not deselect them all. As a general rule, merely changing to a different tool has no business changing the current selection's selection state. So I'm not defending Affinity's interface in this regard. Both programs' interfaces sometimes violate the base concept of "selection." But as always, Illustrator's interface is not the one to emulate or to aspire to. In multiple scenarios, Illustrator's behavior treats 'AnchorPoints' (nodes) as if they are separate and distinct entities from segments. But of course, a segment cannot even exist without nodes. There is no such thing as a 'node-less' path or segment. This is why Illustrator is more prone to creating so-called 'Stray Points' than any other program in class. It's also one of the many things that makes Bezier-based drawing seem so needlessly confounding to newcomers. If you haven't yet, you should also get fully acquainted with Affinity's Point Transform Tool (F). Once acustomed to it, you may find this a refreshing change from Illustrator. JET
  7. There are already other feature request threads about 'select same' (select by attributes) functionality. Illustrator's treatment of this is not the one to emulate. JET
  8. My general pet peeve about icons is that if one requires a text label to explain it, then what good is the icon? For example, the word "Proportional" with a simple checkbox next to it is abundantly clear, without any cutesy graphic. Another is the way programs often seem compelled to provide two icons for what is really a simple Boolean choice: off or on, yes or no. Illustrator is one of the worst about that. Actual tooltips on pairs of icons: Reverse Path Direction Off and Reverse Path Direction On Show Center and Don't Show Center My all-time favorite was the completely indecipherable pair of icons representing New Art Has Basic Appearance and New Art Has [something else] Appearance. They finally did away with those and replace them with—wait for it—a checkbox. My other all-time favorite was a whole palette in InDesign (I forget which one it was), the requisite Palette Options popup menu of which had the requisite Show Options selection—for a palette that had but one option. And here I was, thinking that the whole purpose of an options palette was to show options. JET
  9. My first annoyance with the Node tool is that when a path is selected, switching to the Node Tool deselects all nodes. Switching tools should not change the selection state. Very often, one's purpose in switching to the Node tool is to be able to drag a whole path by a specific node in order to snap that node to a snapping candidate elsewhere, rather than moving it by the infernal bounding box. JET
  10. I'm not the Affinity Team. Just a user of Affinity and whatever other software I happen to need to most efficiently get my work done. As I've said in the other thread on this subject, I'm confident a DXF import filter will be added to Affinity when its developers deem it appropriate. Meanwhile, that certainly doesn't prevent my using Affinity for all the things it can do. So yes, my " completely and utterly retarded" advice to you is: If you really can't get your work done with Affinity software just because it does not yet have a DXF import filter, then keep your business running using whatever combination of software tools will meet requirements—just like countless companies that have been routinely importing DXF files since long before anyone even heard of Affinity—instead of making silly grandstand plays like 'offering $20,000' in an online user forum. JET
  11. M44, I'd really like to help you out here. So just send me the $20,000 and I will promptly send you an upper-midrange Windows workstation with Corel Technical Designer installed. That will provide your mission-critical DXF import—and a whole lot more to boot—without your even having to wait for a DXF import filter to be added to Affinity. Just think of how far that will put you ahead of all your competition. They will still be sitting idle, unable to conduct business due to lack of the same business-critical need. I'm not joking. I'm as serious here as you are. JET
  12. I've used Canvas since it was a Macintosh Desk Accessory. Its primary differentiator had nothing to do with 'CAD', but that it combined raster and vector editing at the object level, as opposed to treating them as separate 'layers' like Silicon Graphics SuperPaint. Canvas is and always has been a general-purpose illustration and design program, squarely in the same category as FreeHand, Illustrator, Draw, and all the others. Deneba's marketing just never acted 'ashamed' of its being suitable for technical-commercial illustration, as if that's some kind of red-headed stepchild, like most other vendors in this category do. It later turned that into its 'niche' marketing theme. But the program is not really as niche as its marketing suggests. Canvas's interface style is 'dated' much in the same way that Inkscape's is: merely in regards to the fadish blacked-out everything that has become the defacto standard these days, which I'm convinced just spins off from the aesthetics of the video game generation. That's a fad which itself has become cliche and dated, and I'll be more than happy to see it fade away. (It's as bad practice to do serious graphics work in dark environments as it ever was.) But just as in Inkscape, that has nothing to do with functionality. The more significantly 'dated' aspect of Canvas's interface is organizational metaphor. For example, 'Inks' and 'Pens' are arguably more metaphorically intuitive than 'Swatches' and 'Strokes,' but not to those now long accustomed to Illustrator and all the brands that incessantly mimic it. Affinity is doing just that, in principle. Canvas's marketing has long touted its…um…affinity for technical illustration. But, for example, browse its feature set and show me what's actually there expressly supportive of axonometric drawing. But here's the deal regarding Canvas: I rejoiced upon hearing that venerable Canvas had finally escaped the stifling clutches of ACD. I immediately thereafter abandoned it altogether when its new management foisted the Adobe-esque rental-only licensing scheme. So here is an over 30-year advocate of Canvas who will never pay another cent toward its continuance. No, Affinity Designer does not yet have a DXF import filter. But I'm confident it will, simply on the basis that it clearly does not eschew technical-commercial drawing discipline. It's just a matter of priority. You want to talk about Canvas? Has anyone here tried Corel Technical Designer? (A program I do still pay for because it so far does not force-feed that money-for-nothing marketing scam)? Do you realize that Affinity's axonometric grid feature is much like that program's (slightly earlier) similar feature, at a cost of about 8% as much? So no, Serif is not afraid of providing for tech-ish commercial illustration. It's not helping 'the cause' to continually trot out the 'CAD word.' I dare say most users of mainstream vector drawing programs have never done any drafting, and are turned-off by (if not downright fearful of) any mention of it. Why do we need DXF? It mostly boils down to this: Generally speaking, CAD programs don't export flattened drawings of their models as Bezier curves. They export curves as dumbed-down, penup-pendown-moveto faceted polylines in an increasingly archaic format called DXF that effectively undoes the supposed resolution independence of vector-based paths in the first place. It's needed for the sake of commercial illustration, not for the sake of CAD. That's what users with little-to-no CAD experience need to understand. The format itself is pretty lame. But for a decent mainstream general-use vector drawing program to work with it efficiently, other features are needed. You need a good flood fill feature. You need a really good join and smooth feature, hopefully (since this is the 21st century, after all) with at least some shape recognition capability. (Want to know how many times I've had to tediously 'inform' the drawing that those holes in the frame rails are closed ellipses?) So my hope, as always, is that delays for features in Affinity really do stem from its developers' desire to do something better than standard-fare, and their understanding that well-implemented features are not standalone, but need to integrate well with the rest of the feature set. That's how an elegant program becomes more than just the sum of its individual features. Doing that requires systematic priority. JET
  13. Nonsense. Since when is merely specifying a line by length and angle or drawing to user-defined scale only for 'CAD tools'? Egads, man, by that kind of logic, no 'CAD tool' should be able to colorize a vector object, either. Do you know why it's called a Bezier curve, and what industry Mr. Bezier was working in? Mainstream vector drawing programs are very general-purpose. They are not just used for loosey-goosey freehand scribbling in an ill-conceived attempt to emulate 'natural media' on a tiny cell phone screen with a pudgy finger. These programs are routinely used for: Cleaning up and augmenting CAD exports to make them suitable for commercial-quality reproduction Drawing die cuts for commercial collateral and package design Drawing garden plats Maps of all kinds Typeface design Bird's-eye views of theme parks for visitor's brochures Conceptuals and working drawings for commercial signage, storefronts, interior designs, point-of-sale displays, billboards Cutting paths for sign vinyl plotters and routers Architectural concepts Trade show displays and booth sites, both as conceptual renderings and as final working drawings All manner of info graphics And, yes, axonometric drawing (assembly diagrams for everything from colorful pre-school toys to mundane light fixtures) …I could go on indefinitely. Since the mid-80s I've been using FreeHand, Canvas, Draw, Illustrator, Flash, and most others that have come along in this software category since then to do these kinds of things, all of which are squarely within the real world domain of profitable commercial illustration. JET
  14. Andy, What part of the original suggestion does Arceom's video not demonstrate as existing capability? What part of it is a mere 'workaround'? JET
  15. A few examples of what I'm talking about regarding providing more randomizing options in general: Random Object Fill Random Baseline Shift Random Style Random Transparency Random Replace Symbol Not meaning to derail the thread from the topic of a well-designed roughen feature (with which I agree); just a generalization that I find it a curious oversight that math based vector drawing programs don't provide for leveraging a random function in more command option settings. JET
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. 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.