Jump to content

JET_Affinity

Members
  • Content count

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JET_Affinity

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

694 profile views
  1. ?? Begging your pardon, Mark, but quite often my purposes for resetting a bounding box is to permanently reorient the selection to its current state. I dare say you'll have the same argument with decades of Illustrator users, because that program's Reset Bounding Box command is used all the time and it is only permanent; it can't be "restored" to the orientation in which the object was originally created (unless, of course, you reverse the transformation(s) performed and then Reset Bounding Box again). The "extra space" bounds which Wickster illustrates is also a stumbling block, (and I don't mean in the context of live text). Yes, I appreciate that Affinity is able to "remember" its untransformed orientation. But it's just as common to need the object to forget its original orientation, and thereafter treat its new orientation as normal. JET
  2. Okay. You have one. Continue using Illustrator (or any of several other programs). As for me, I'm looking for something better from a new built-from-the-ground-up program; not just more copycat "me, too" functionality. Again: Warping / enveloping is on the published to-do list. Serif has acknowledged the need and openly stated it is in the plans. So what is all the ranting about? You really think this is just a "who screams the loudest" contest and that improvements to a program automatically jump to the top of the list according to that? No, features often necessarily depend upon a foundation laid by other features, or have to serve as part of the foundation of other planned features; especially when the goal is to dare go beyond conventional wisdom and standard-fare. Moreover, as in any "popularity-driven" scenario, the "majority" quite often gets it wrong when it comes to what's deal-breakingly "most important." Most every pet feature request is couched in those grossly exaggerated terms. Simple mob rule is no way to methodically advance anything. A mere emulation of Illustrator's problematic Free Transform Tool is way down my list. Yes, provision for vector-based warping is pretty standard-fare nowadays. But other things (all routine ordinary on-page transformations presently being bounding box dependent in the first place) are far more fundamentally important in that they form a usability foundation for the whole program. JET
  3. Hotly argued? Where? I've not seen any contention (least of all from Serif) over whether the program needs a good offset path command and better results from expanding strokes (which I suspect are functionally closely-related ). Where has Serif ever said this is not needed or not planned? What I have seen are equally poor implementations of the function in early versions of other drawing programs. That leads me to suspect it may not be as simple as end users assume. And it's no more foundational than other presently missing but equally-common features. Path blends, for one example, is just as standard-fare. On the other hand, check how many decades it took for Adobe Illustrator to provide any kind of live shape primitives, something ubiquitous to even "office" or "works" programs. Or a "page 2." (All the while, that program's devotees continuously proclaiming it the "industry leader," the "de facto standard," the "professional" drawing program, ad nauseam.) Does anyone really think the Affinity development team does not fully intend to improve its offset path functionality? Does anyone really think they are going to convince the Team to immediately drop everything they're doing and get to work on their specific "most important" deal-breaking feature? It's a development process. It's a plan. It has to be. We end users are not privy to the reasons why things have to be implemented in a certain order. It's not a simple matter of who whines (no g) the loudest. It's why it's still version 1.x and why we're not being charged additionally for the many improvements that are being implemented in every dot release. JET
  4. Egads! Upper and lower case. That's advanced! JET
  5. Just pragmatic. Masochists are those who put up with the long drawn-out, over-hyped, on-again-off-again, compatibility-breaking, Gershwin, Rhapsody, etc., etc., ad nauseam transition from Mac Classic to OS10. That's when I quit kicking against the thorns, well after the significant MacOS advantages had been rendered moot. I still have the pinstripe G4, complete with its DVD-RAM and SyQuest drives. I'll make you a good deal on it. That's okay, though. We Windows users need you 20% ers to keep buying your stylish Macs, 'cause Microsoft always needs somebody to copy. Otherwise, we'd still be looking at green 80 column letters on black screens. JET
  6. I left MacOS behind almost two decades ago and haven’t looked back. JET
  7. If I may… I don't mean to come across like some kind of self-appointed "forum sheriff", but you guys would do well to better explain the specific functionality you desire. You're referring to a proprietary tool in a specific program; Illustrator's so-called Free Transform Tool. No doubt countless skilled users of programs other than Illustrator have no idea what you're talking about as a "real free transform tool." In fact, having spent decades in the Illustrator user forums, I dare say even many, many Illustrator users don't know what it's for, and seldom touch it. It's certainly not among the most commonly used features. When it comes down to it, Illustrator's Free Transform Tool is just another bounding box based scaling tool. As such, its behavior probably could be integrated as a few more keyboard-modified behaviors of Affinity's existing and (sometimes oppressively) omnipresent bounding boxes, rather than as another dedicated toolbox icon. Illustrator's Free Transform Tool is kind of a pre-cursor to more capable envelope-based distortion features that came to most programs later. (And envelope-based distortion—warping, etc.— is on Affinity's roadmap, and none of us, as yet, have any idea how the interface of that will work.) That's why you need to describe or demonstrate the specific functionality you are desiring instead of just invoking the little-understood proprietary name of a program-specific feature. Illustrator's Free Transform Tool is, frankly, also rather poorly implemented. Long time Illustrator forum regulars (including myself) have many times tediously explained to other users (and not just beginners) the tedious sequence of multiple keyboard momentary modifiers required to invoke its faux "perspective" thing ("mousedown then Ctrl-Alt; mousedown then Ctrl-Alt!"). Further tedium stems from its most potential-killing aspect: that its bounding box resets to a rectangle after each and every move of one of its handles . FreeHand's similar tool, for example, didn't do that. It held its transformed shape (like an envelope), so it was much more useful for the most common purposes, like moving each corner of the bounding box to corresponding corners of an obliquely-viewed surface by a series of moves. But my larger point is this: In this thread, some of you associate words like "crippling" with this request. But if there's anything actually debilitating about Affinity transformations at the moment it's that all of its on-page interactive (pointing device driven) transformations are based on dragging the infernal bounding box handles. That's the real issue that needs to be addressed; not just a "me, too" copy of Illustrator's specific treatment of a rather dated and limited bounding box-based warp behavior. Think bigger. Forget Illustrator. JET
  8. JET_Affinity

    Real vector brushes

    I'm not an insider; just a user like you. But I certainly assume that vector based "brushes" (i.e., ability to stretch, repeat, or blend vector objects along paths) are planned. However, I would just as strongly think it unrealistic to expect a reverse-engineering of Adobe Illustrator's specific treatments of "brushes". So I'd expect any ability to directly import Illustrators' brushes as still-live constructs to be just as unlikely for Affinity as it is for any other competitive drawing program. Corel Draw, Canvas, etc., can't directly import Illustrator brushes, either, just as Illustrator can't directly import working copies of proprietary constructs in those programs and just as Illustrator can't directly import Affinity's raster-based brushes. Nor would I even want that. Illustrator's vector-based brushes are one of its few truly differentiating features, and I even dare say I use them more elaborately than most users do. But that doesn't mean it can't be done better. Illustrator's Art, Scatter, and Pattern Brushes are full of unnecessary limitations and they are too "standalone" in nature; "ignorant" of other Illustrator functionality that should be integrated with them. Think about it: Such a feature ties in with a lot of other more foundational functionality (path strokes, fills, ends, Symbols, envelope distortion…). Affinity is still only approaching version 2, and its functional foundation (like transformations) is still very much under development. To build something better than standard fare, you don't put the cart before the horse, just to be able to claim "me, too." JET
  9. For those not familiar, the behavior result that Rudolphus is depicting here… …is reminiscent of FreeHand. Unlike most drawing programs, FreeHand did not just provide two node types ("smooth" and "cusp" or "corner" and "curve"). It also provided a third node type called a "Connector Point." A Connector Point was a node with just one handle, the length of which affected the curvature of the next (outgoing) segment. But that single handle always maintained tangency with the end of the preceding (incoming) segment. Its purpose was to always ensure perfect tangency between a straight segment and a curved segment, no matter what you subsequently did to those adjacent segments. Particularly important in drawing font glyphs, but just as useful in accurate general illustration. Most vector illustrators are not even aware of it, because it was never a feature of Illustrator. So the behavior which Rudolphus is suggesting could be useful for the same purpose. But since Affinity also only provides the two most common types of nodes, the tangency would not be maintained if the two associated segments are thereafter altered. The node is still just an ordinary smooth node with one handle retracted. But it would be a great thing if the concept of FreeHand's Connector Point were "resurrected" in a modern drawing program. It's just one of many "long lost" superiorities of that program. JET
  10. Version 1.7.0.188 Rectangle Tool: Drag to draw a rectangle. Transform palette: Proportional link off. Key "Sqrt(2)" into W field. Tap Enter key. Nothing happens. JET
  11. JET_Affinity

    Simple Rotation

    Thanks for the interest, Ben. Tactile transformations (with the mouse) really are deal-breakingly important. It makes all the difference between drawing accurately as opposed to having to merely "eyeball" things. Some programs (those without dedicated Transform Tools in the toolbox) do it when the bounding box is visible (as in the Corel screenshot in my previous post), but they don't require you to mousedown on the rotate handles of the bounding; they let you mousedown on any node or edge with full snapping ability for all candidates. When doing serious illustration, the object(s) you are rotating (including groups, symbols, sub-selections of nodes of single or multiple paths) are all kinds of shapes, and the detail you are interested in snapping into rotation alignment with other objects edges (and not necessarily straight edges) or guides have nothing at all to do with the locations of any of the bounding box handles. So in most situations, the bounding box is immaterial and just makes for annoying visual clutter. Other programs (Illustrator, FreeHand) do provide dedicated Transform Tools. This is far cleaner, more consistent, and more intuitive to use, because they work the same regardless of the selection; whole objects, sub-selected partial paths, or combinations of both, and show no unnecessary bounding box that is totally unrelated to what one is trying to do. That's the huge advantage to having actual Transform Tools in the toolbox as opposed to merely having transform handles on a bounding box. There are multiple important subtleties involved. For example, In Illustrator, when you mousedown on the node to be dragged, that node becomes the snapping object of interest, even if while dragging, the cursor moves off that node. That enables you to, for example, snap that node into rotational alignment with object edges which are shorter or longer than the radius of the node's rotation. A simpler, but just as important behavior detail intimately related is the mere matter of what happens when you switch tools. In Affinity, when you move a path with the Move Tool, and then simply switch to the Node tool, or doubleClick the path to invoke the Node Tool, all the nodes are indicated, but none are selected. This is maddeningly annoying when your purpose for switching to the Node Tool in the first place is to drag the whole path by one of its nodes so as to snap it somewhere, even for mere translations, let alone rotations or other transformations. When you select something with the Move Tool, the selection is selected as a whole. Therefore, while it is still selected and you switch to the Node tool, it should still be selected as a whole (all of its nodes selected). There is no justification for changing the selection just because you switched to the other selection tool. And by what rationale should the transform anchor disappear when the Node Tool is selected; even when in it's "transform mode"? One would expect to at least be able to perform the accurate rotation numerically as a tedious workaround. But that's frustrated by the matter of not being able to know or measure the angle of a straight segment that was originally drawn diagonally, as opposed to being first drawn horizontally or vertically and then rotated. There's no measure tool, and that omnipresent bounding box doesn't know didly about the angle at which the line was drawn. (This problem, of course, pertains to angles between any two coordinates; not just straight single-segment paths.) And really, it's not just about rotation. Skewing and reflecting should also be possible to do with the mouse while snapping along other guides, pathGuides, or unselected objects at any arbitrary angle (as could Freehand), but rotation is the real deal breaker here. JET
  12. JET_Affinity

    Simple Rotation

    Hi, Ben. It certainly does need work, and I was sure hoping to see it addressed before the release of 1.7. This is something that mainstream drawing programs do. One obvious and very common use case is the one I depicted: The need to align the minor diameter of any ellipse (i.e., any foreshortened circle) to its thrust line (i.e., its axis; the perpendicular line about which it "orbits"). This is a fundamental principle of any kind of realistic illustration, and not just in axonometric, but in converging perspective as well. And it's not just about aligning ellipses with their thrust lines. The need to rotate with reliable snaps when dragging by a node is very commonly needed in countless general drawing and design situations. Having rotation with reliable and accurate snapping based only on bounding boxes is sub-standard. Couple of quick screenshots from Illustrator and CorelDRAW:
  13. JET_Affinity

    Simple Rotation

    What am I missing? JET
  14. All this discussion buttresses my point, which I clearly stated: We users have no idea how a decision by Serif to make Affinity core functionally dependent upon back-end licensing of code from a third-party plug-in developer would affect us and the future and marketing direction of the product. And end users are effectively being urged to back that licensing — by that third-party developer—in a Serif user forum. (Try doing that on, say, Adobe's forum.) There are sound reasons why it's illegal to campaign within a certain proximity of the voting booth. Yes, I'm familiar with the product. I don't buy it for the reasons I already explained re avoidance of my own dependency upon third-party add-ons. Sure, I'd like to see whatever I consider better functionality or interface approach in whatever drawing program I license, regardless of where I see it. I like, for example, some of the new wrinkle interface stuff I see for path manipulation in FontLab. That doesn't mean I want Serif to license that interface from FontLab and pass the cost on to me. For another example, the very best thing any object-based graphics program could do is re-map the entire interface onto the object inspector concept, as FreeHand did many years ago. That certainly doesn't mean I'm going to become a volunteer campaign worker to urge Serif to license that idea from Adobe just because it now owns FreeHand's code. JET
×