Jump to content

JET_Affinity

Members
  • Content Count

    477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JET_Affinity

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,539 profile views
  1. How many years has Illustrator been around? Are you unaware that up to at least CS6 (final version before Captive Customers licensing, which is when I flatly quit buying it) its 'professional' knife tool still doesn't know what to do with an open, unfilled path? Have you been active in the Affinity Beta testing? I know personally that new features are tweaked and improved as a result of feedback there. Unlike Adobe for its entire history during when I bought it, you had to sign NDAs to participate in beta programs. JET
  2. EXACTLY! If the vector-based drawing software segment is ever going to get out of its decades-long lethargy (due primarily to the market dominance of Illustrator), we should be thinking beyond the mediocre status-quo conventional-wisdom. Serif's Affinity project is a rare opportunity to start doing that, because it actually listens to user input on features not yet implemented in yet another look-same, act-same, "me, too" fashion in order to satisfy often very rudely presented repetitive 'demand' for more of the same old crap. I don't need more of the same old crap. A 'knife' tooI' is a case-in-point. These programs still too much assume a need to continue user-interfaces based on metaphors that are outdated for approaching half a century. Forget the lame metaphor of an X-Acto knife. I've been arguing for decades that in a program (a medium) designed primarily for manipulating Bezier curves, one should be able to convert any path to either a cutting path or a selection marquee. Find me a program that does that. Forget Illustrator. There are many opportunities to get out of the same old ruts that too many think are 'must haves.' JET
  3. Some of you guys need to get off your 'I'm such a professional' high horse, effectively insulting everyone else here you don't even know. A professional can do professional work with a crayon. I'm inclined to doubt the claimed 'professionalism' of anyone who truly thinks a program is 'useless' until it's a veritable clone of the one program with which they're familiar, and has all the time in the world to waste repetitively whining about it. I've been making my living in digital graphics for 35 years. Can I right now, today, do commercial-quality saleable work for clients in Affinity? Absolutely. Just like I can with Illustrator, Draw, Technical Designer, Canvas, and others, despite their respective weaknesses. Do I consider Adobe Illustrator 'professional quality'? Compared to what? Regarding which features? I can build a list of sub-par features for any vector drawing program on my computer, including Illustrator. I can also build a list of features which Affinity could—with just a little innovation instead of just ever-more 'me, too' copying of conventional wisdom—easily implement in such a way to surpass Illustrator's functionality. Since the beginning of the 'desktop revolution' in the mid-80s, one thing I've considered a matter of simple professionalism is to maintain at least working familiarity with as many mainstream vector graphics applications as I can. That's why I didn't become a victim when Adobe foisted its Captive Customer licensing scheme. Affinity can do things Illustrator can't. For just two examples: It provides a full-blown feature set for mechanically-correct axonometric drawing. To those who know how to use it (and broaden one's money-making skill set with it), that alone is worth the price of all three Affinity applications put together. Affinity's value fields understand a math expression containing more than one operator. (What a concept for one-fifth of the way into the 21st century, 'professional' Illustrator!) Waiting until any given program does everything one wants it to, in precisely the way the single program with which one is proficient does it, is a good way to find oneself behind one's competitors and mission-critically dependent upon a single vendor. Use the programs you buy for what the can do. If you truly "can't do anything with a program until you get your wish", then why are you wasting your time and breath if you consider the program so 'hopelessly 'unprofessional.' Don't buy them. Don't use them. Get on with your erudite, single-track, blinders-wearing, awe-inspiring career. JET
  4. Adding a fresh post is fine. Creating yet another thread on the same topic is not. That just wastes the time of all forum participants. As does creating these grab-bag 'personal lists' of feature requests that effectively negate the basic organizational schema of a discussion forum in the first place. JET
  5. Please search for existing topics. When you have new feature request topics, please create one thread per topic. No one has time to weed through each person's grab-bag list of pet features. Such threads just lead to the confusion of scattered and disjointed discussions. JET
  6. There are existing discussion threads for both of these topics. JET
  7. Otto, In a 2D vector environment, the kind of distortion you depict is essentially an envelope distortion. It's not "wishful thinking"; it's quite common, there are other feature request threads about it, the developers have acknowledged it and stated that it is planned. The fact that envelope distortion features are common in this software category does not make them all equal. It is a generic term, and implementations range from good to very poor. The interfaces of some are just a few lame handles that you use by 'eyeballing' the result; others are based on geometric principles of perspective projection. Envelope distortion is the basis of many different interface features. For example, Illustrator's Free Transform Tool, Warp, Mesh, and Perspective Grid features all involve different implementations of envelope distortion. So what users have in mind when asking for it can be all over the place. What satisfies very basic enveloping like your example, will no doubt invoke criticism from others. Personally, I have no use for more features rushed-out-the-door in 'me, too' fashion just because users are impatient. I want to see it done right and done well with some innovation and elegance in Affinity, not just rushed-out-the-door like Arrowheads. JET
  8. Two weeks! Everything you need will be done in two weeks. (See The Money Pit.) Seriously, no one can tell you 'when'. And there are already other threads about this. While we anticipate possible new features, our contribution should be well thought-out ideas about how the desired feature should work and perhaps how it could improve upon standard-fare. 'Perspective Tool' is vague because 'perspective' is a broadly generic term. Multiple treatments exist for 'perspective' drawing, some more geometrically valid than others. The most exciting 'new wrinkle' I've seen in the 'perspective' context in a long time (since the advent of FreeHand's Perspective Grid, which was much later poorly mimicked in Illustrator) is Lazy Nezumi; a utility application that acts as an 'interface overlay' to geometrically translate your gestures to most any 2D graphics program you're using. But that's an entirely different thing from an envelope-based warping feature. JET
  9. Agree. It grieves me to see new features released in a sub-par state. It needs not only multiple contours, but control over spacing rate, either uniform or increasing / decreasing. (Think of surface contour lines on maps.) See CorelDraw's Contour Tool. It's been around so long and so many use it that that's going to be expected as minimum functionality by thousands. As a minimal workaround, there should at least be a keyboard shortcut one could tap to commit a contour while dragging the tool, so one could continue dragging for the next contour, commit it, and so on. JET
  10. To my mind, 'baking' the appearance of applied effects is an excellent term. Far more intuitively suggestive of the concept of committing to something than is 'expanding' it. What am I 'expanding' when I 'nail something down'? JET
  11. Bah. One guy's opinion. Don't worry. I won't be surprised. I also won't be surprised if it doesn't. If it does, I'll stop buying it, just as I did with Adobe, as soon as it made that announcement. If it doesn't, I'll continue updating my perpetual license. Simple as that. As it is, Corel is getting a significant portion of the money I no longer pay Adobe. JET
  12. Lest anyone be misled, this is not true. Corel offers both subscription and perpetual licensing; customer's choice. Corel should be commended (and supported) for not forcing a take-it-or-leave-it rental-only license scheme. I despise software rental schemes as much as anyone, and will not pay them. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater by spreading erroneous information. So far, Corel is still one of the 'good guys.' JET
  13. A simple "Select Inverse" command nested with the existing Select Previous and Select Next would work for that. It doesn't need to be associated with any 'Select Same..." feature. You could make as complicated a criteria-based selection as you want, and the Select Inverse command would work for that. Or, you could simply make any kind of selection you want having nothing to do with attributes (objects within a lasso selection, for example) and the Select Inverse command would work for that, too. In a nutshell, you guys are basically talking about what has been mentioned in the various related Feature Requests: Something more akin to FreeHand's Graphic Find and Replace feature than Illustrator's comparatively lame late-to-the-game answer to it (a few Select Same... commands). Obviously (and unfortunately) Serif decided to go with the latter (I assume to assuage the incessant "must have it now!" demands), rather than the former. So now we have it, and here we are in the Beta testing and feedback forum still trying to get it turned into the former. For those not familiar, FreeHand's Graphic Find and Replace was not a clutter; it resided in a single but powerful palette. It could select or replace combinations of attributes, and with ranges where appropriate. SQL is fine for databases. I also use it everyday. But if you want to provide for user-defined logic for finds (yeah, I'm a FileMaker guy), in a graphics program, you can kill that stone—and countless more—with one bird: a JavaScript object model, API, and documentation. As with what I see as the 'we gave in' Arrowheads treatment, I'm disappointed in this Adobe-esque Select Same feature. But the ship has sailed, at least for now, and this software segment continues drifting in its 'me, too' doldrums. Hope for making it something better at this point just constitutes more Feature Request discussion. JET
  14. I'm aware of that and quite agree. However, what got me here was clicking a Notification yesterday that responded to one of my posts. The subject caused me to assume I was in the feature request forum. This whole thread should have been moved. 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.