Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JET_Affinity

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

431 profile views
  1. JET_Affinity

    Table object

    I seldom use them, even a page-layout program. I construct my tables with tabs and proper paragraph styles. FreeHand had an unobtrusive little feature in its text engine called a wrapping tab. I've never seen it in any other program, but it is such an elegant solution for much of what one typically does with tables. Now, if the program had a "table" feature that could actually function as spreadsheet or calculator for purposes of data-driven text and graphic content; I could go for that. JET
  2. I will not rent graphics software. JET
  3. Just as all paths are either open or closed, all paths have a direction. That, in combination with another attribute called the "winding rule" is what determines whether a sub-path of a compound path creates a "hole." (Such fundamental concepts should be explained in the introductory chapters of documentation of Bezier drawing applications, rather than just "which button to push.") Several other drawing programs provide options for display of path end nodes as tiny arrows, indicating the direction of the path. That addresses the complaint (confusion) about what "left" and "right" mean in the context (although, while convenient, it really isn't necessary once the concept is grasped, since paths are assumedly deliberately drawn). A button (or context menu selection) should always be provided for reversing the direction of any path (as in FreeHand), not just for compound sub-paths (as in Illustrator). JET
  4. I agree. When programs that provide for in-setting and out-setting strokes on closed paths do not provide the same for open paths, it can cause users to unwittingly commit mistakes when a closed path is cut or opened, affecting maps, manually-built traps, etc. (One of many annoying inconsistencies in Adobe Illustrator.) JET
  5. "Grow" and "shrink" are rather ambiguous. Please explain or demonstrate with a screenshot what exactly you mean. You can key values into the Transform fields as simple math expressions. For example, suppose the selection has a width of 1.25 and you want it to measure 1.5. You can click into the W field and type "+.25". Or type "*1.2" to scale it by 120%. (It probably accepts the % character, too, but I don't have Affinity in front of me right now.) The Stroke panel provides a button labeled "Scale with Object," if that's what you mean. Again, if I'm missing your meaning, please explain. For example, a request to "grow" a path could be a request to have its length change, according to its existing curvature. Also, for clarity, try to use the program's terminology for referring to objects. "A vector" is just a direction with an associated magnitude value. JET
  6. I bought (and still use) the first-gen Surface Pro (not the RT) specifically because it runs the desktop OS. If the Affinity Desktop apps had the same UI as the iPad versions, I wouldn't use them. I gave up finger painting before kindergarten. JET
  7. A man after my own heart. Q: What do you call an icon that needs a tooltip in order to be understood? A: Gratuitous eye candy. Yeah, yeah, I get it. But I'm also old enough to remember two things: Being included in the first group of drafters and illustrators to be trained on the company's CATIA installation just before the advent of the icon-crazy "desktop publishing revolution." For those unfamiliar, CATIA is a fairly "high end" CAE system. In those early version days, its geometric functions were (egads!) spelled out in a tidy list on the right side of the screen. Microsoft Word 5, when the horizontal icon bars occupied a full half of the fixed-resolution monitor's screen. (Microsoft rationale, "If 15 icons are good, then 1500 must be GREAT!" is nowadays evident in the number of buttons on the typical Microsoft branded mouse.) Okay. But yes, those two Disproportional MinFit and MaxFit Constraint icons are prime candidates for tooltips, if I ever saw one (er...three). JET
  8. This is a public forum. The reason for that is clearly to allow other users (both those less experienced and more experienced than the contributor) to comment on and discuss the merits of the suggestion. As with most such lists, some of your suggestions are okay. Others; not so much. But when I have something of value to contribute to a feature discussion, I'm not going to go looking for AXK's (or anyone else's) thread in search of the topic of interest. I'm just going to run down the list of topics organized by subject, not by some screen name's self-claimed expertise. This fallacy is one pandemic among newcomers to software feature discussion forums. Everyone's posting his or her personal "brilliant list" of features effectively nullifies the forum's hierarchal organization, without which it just becomes unnavigable mass confusion. If it were just about each user sharing his or her omniscience with the developers, it wouldn't be a public forum, and the developers wouldn't be able to get anything done for having to read the pontification of 10,000 users often saying the same thing, instead of 100 constructive (and often self-correcting and self-improving) discussions on specific features. Suppose a developer is presently working on a particular feature. Do you want your wisdom to be included in his considerations, or do you expect him to go searching for your celebrity name to see if you had something of great insight to say on the feature? JET
  9. (im a new user on affinity so dont shoot me if its already in use) Not shooting you, but welcoming you as a fellow axonometric illustrator: Important enhancements relative to the subject have been previewed in the "sneak peek" thread for version 1.7. JET
  10. JET_Affinity

    Rotating guidelines

    Except that you now cannot: Select a pre-existing path. Select all of its Nodes. Mousedown on one Node and drag to snap that Node to the "guide." Snap the Transformation Anchor to that Node. (Transform Anchor is not available with the white pointer active, and black pointer active only lets you rotate by dragging bounding box handles.) Rotate the selected path by dragging one of its other Nodes and snapping it to the "guide." The core problem is that all of Affinity's interface for manually performing on-page rotations is based on bounding box handles (i.e., being selected with the black pointer), which quite often (in my use, most often) does not correspond to the selectable detail of the path which needs to be snapped to angular alignment. And entering the rotation value numerically in the Transform palette does not serve this common need either, because it also is based on the orientation of the bounding box (or the 9-point proxy), and because the program does not tell you the rotation or length of a temporary construction "guide" (straight, single-segment path) which was drawn by dragging the Pen in it Line Mode. This fixation and dependency upon bounding boxes for transformations (i.e., absence of transformation tools) is one of the most debilitating foundational aspects of Affinity Designer's interface. But that is a sub-standard throwback to the days before FreeHand allowed you to convert any path(s) to proper "Path Guides"; which nowadays is provided in other mainstream drawing programs. Proper guides (and pathGuides) are displayed as "hairlines" so their width is always drawn as thin as the display allows. (Hairline stroke weight for ordinary paths is another feature that sorely needs to be added to Affinity Designer; one of many opportunities to surpass standard-fare. I get so tired of having to use a .25 pt (or smaller) stroke weight in Illustrator as a workaround for the needed hairline feature.) JET
  11. In your list of "pro" suggestions, you keep mentioning PS (assumedly Adobe Photoshop). This sub-forum is Suggestions for Affinity Designer on Desktop. Why with your charge that "you guys...secretly use Illustrator" would you expect Affinity Designer to act just like Adobe Photoshop? When making suggestions in a software-specific suggestion forum, it is far better practice to create separate threads for your suggestions, if you really want them to be "heard." That way, the merits of your individual suggestions can be found and discussed. When everyone just posts their personal "Santa list" there is no way to peruse the suggestions in the topic list, and it causes disjointed repetition of the same suggestion scattered and buried somewhere in multiple such lists. Few users are going "memorize" every other user's wish list in order to know where a particular suggestion is being discussed. As for "pro": I can create a list as long as yours specifying "sub-pro" behaviors and missing features in Adobe Illustrator. Adobe Illustrator is no more inherently "professional" than any of its mainstream competitors. Professional quality work is done in all of them (including Affinity Designer) and is more a matter of the user than the software. A professional can do professional quality work with a crayon. JET
  12. Integration. Another myth. Merely having the same brand on the boxes and selling them as a bundle does not make disparate softwares "integrated." Corel's suite is more functionally "integrated" than Adobe's. And clearly, functional integration between apps is part of the driving agenda with the Affinity line. I think you need to differentiate what kind of "seamless integration" you're talking about if you insist on continuing this line of argument. When you're talking about "seamless integration" between different workers under different roofs actually editing the same files, workflow is of course more "seamless" if everyone is using the same software. But that would be true of any software. But not everyone works that way. No one modifies my illustrations but me. And I can "integrate" them into any "industry standard" publishing workflow with any of the drawing programs I use, via commonly-compatible exchange formats. Look, I've been making my living doing this stuff since before Macs and graphics software. Throughout their competitive history, Aldus/Altsys FreeHand led Illustrator in functionality, often to the point of embarrassment. Even in those pre-PDF years, I was doing national level advertising and product collateral with FreeHand in the days when the claim of Illustrator devotees was that one "can't get files output at the service bureaus without using Illustrator." Those same single-program devotees rent their garments and proclaimed the coming of the apocalypse whenever anyone merely suggested that an Illustrator file should be able to have a "page 2." Adobe is what it is (big) primarily because of one reason: PostScript. That was the baby that put Adobe on the map because it was the software half of the industry-changing "desktop publishing" equation in the 80s. That's how Adobe first acquired its mindshare. Many of its software products were acquired from other companies (and some of them wrecked). It takes a while for users to get over their fear of learning new and different software, but times do change. And Adobe's applications (especially Illustrator) are increasingly dated. In terms of "professional" quality and functionality; Illustrator is as mediocre as "competing" programs which mimic it, and the widespread addiction to that mediocrity has stifled the advancement of the 2D vector drawing segment. I mean, honestly; an ostensibly "professional" 2D drawing program in the 21st century that can't handle user-defined drawing scales? It's way past time for something beyond that, and the Affinity line is one of the promising specs of light shining at the end of that long tunnel. But it, too, will fall into mediocrity if the goal is to simply focus on playing "me, too" to Adobe. JET
  13. The way I read it, that's exactly what you are arguing for. Again, these were your words (emphasis added): EPS as an exchange format has been pretty much deprecated since the early 90s, because PDF is like capturing the elements "halfway" on their way to deconstruction and normalization. I did. 3D modeling softwares in the genre oriented toward graphics and the gaming industry do indeed play amazingly well together. But not nearly so well in the engineering genre. Adobe only dominates the design industry because users keep calling it things like "THE standard for any kind of professional design workflow." That's not just nonsense, but rather insulting. I've always considered it a matter of professionalism to maintain at least working familiarity with as many mainstream drawing programs as I can, and I dare say my graphics work is as "professional" as yours. And Illustrator's development since the 80s has arguably been the most sluggish of all. Frankly, I'm not really interested in seeing the Affinity team expend its energy on some kind of mythical "perfect" content exchange with Illustrator. Since CS6, my use of Illustrator is just withering on the vine, and that suits me fine. Quite the contrary, I want to see Affinity and other innovative offerings energetically focus beyond the mediocrity of Adobe Illustrator. JET
  14. But that is an unrealistic expectation. For example, you can't even provide an "end user editable" Adobe Illustrator file and "know that [the recipient] can make any necessary changes in Photoshop." Illustrator can't "seamlessly" open an Adobe Fireworks or an Adobe Flash file and "make any necessary changes" nor vice-versa. Are you aware that Adobe InDesign can neither open nor even import native Adobe Illustrator content? It can only import the PDF content that is stored within the Illustrator file. You can try this yourself. Simply save an Illustrator file without turning on the "Create PDF Compatible File" option, and then try to import it into an InDesign file. Turning that option on merely tells Illustrator to create a PDF of the entire file's content and then include it within the supposed "Adobe Illustrator" file. File exchange between raster imaging programs has always been more "seamless" because, when it comes down to it, a raster image is a simpler construct; basically just a rectangular array of pixel color values. And since the beginning, their cross-application exchange has been accomplished by means of cross-application raster formats (.TIFF, .GIF, .JPEG, PNG, etc.) Vector-based graphics program (drawing and page-layout) files are collections of individual, independent objects. (vector based paths, raster images, live text, and various proprietary constructs which combine and elaborate upon those objects). So unlike raster formats, there was no plethora of cross-application open exchange formats. (This is a large part of why vector-based graphics has been so long and slow in coming to the web.) There was only PostScript (EPS); basically an uneditable "locked box" which the importing program could just pass along to the printer. And not all drawing programs created PostScript output, and not all of those that did were actually full-blown PostScript interpreters. So vendors of vector programs had to sort of "reverse engineer" their own import filters so as to claim to "open" (dissect and try to convert) competing files. And that has never been perfect, and still isn't; not even between different programs from the same vendor, because all such programs create native constructs which the other programs don't understand. For just one of many examples, both Adobe Illustrator and CorelDraw provide path Blends. But that doesn't mean they are identical constructs. Both programs claim to "open" the other's files. But in either direction, the Blends are often dumbed-down to just stacks of individual paths with no "blend" functionality. Similar issues occur with other proprietary constructs. It's the same way with CAD/CAE programs. You don't directly "open" a native Solidworks file with, say, AutoCAD; you export the Solidworks file to an exchange format, and then open that exchange format file with AutoCAD. And much is lost in the "translation." But today there are at least a few standardized open exchange object-based formats which the various vendors can choose to implement (primarily PDF and SVG), and Affinity supports both. But even of these, PDF is not actually intended to be an editing format. And with either format, full editability at both ends of the exchange is far from "seamless" in terms of native round-trip editing, because the exchange formats do not fully support all of the native editing constructs of all the programs that use them. That doesn't mean one can't use multiple drawing programs in the same workflow. But you have to be aware of the limitations and devise your workflow accordingly. It's always been that way anytime you try to share files between competing products, and Affinity is not to blame for that. JET
  15. One little character says so much. Mission-critical dependency on a single tool is self-defeating folly, especially in something as volatile as graphics software. Heck, I still have six different airbrushes I used every day before Macs and graphics software. JET