Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JET_Affinity

  1. Nope. But neither does Illustrator. That's all I was saying. So it's yet another low-hanging-fruit opportunity to move this software segment out of its decades-old doldrums. It's much the same with Illustrator's Measure Tool, which is why I never use it. It doesn't reliably abide by snaps, and Illustrator snaps themselves are unreliably too zoom-dependent, even if you have Smart Guides switched on. Illustrator's Line Tool makes a much better 'Measure Tool' because it is more tactile in snapping: Drag it between two snapping candidates. Click. Its modal dialog opens r
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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 Measu
  5. 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-p
  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: Cli
  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 i
  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 us
  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 mos
  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 u
  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
  16. Again, these features need no appeal to CAD, architecture, mechanical drafting, or any other kind of technical illustration. Programs in this class are for 2D general-purpose vector-based (i.e., scalable) illustration. By its very nature, such functionality should be assumed, precisely because there is no telling what kind of use it may be put to. Yet it (and Affinity is certainly not alone in this) fails to emulate some of the most basic intuitions of 2D geometry. For example, one needs to define a straight line in terms of length and direction whether designing an airplane dashboard lay
  17. No, I won't. I can get good productive and profitable work out of Affinity using what it can do. I don't need Affinity Designer to become a clone of Illustrator to do that. I don't expect every program I use to do everything all the others do in the exact same manner. Affinity already has a plethora of 'brush' features. It doesn't need another just to have one that acts exactly like a particular one in Illustrator. And there are other things I consider much higher priority. That's my vote on this. JET
  18. No, it's not. It's a tactile skill. Just like painting with a watercolor brush is a very different skill from painting with an oil paint brush or twirling a lettering quill. 'Drawing' in a vector-based program is a different skill from 'painting' in a raster imaging program. Why is the insistence on vector drawing programs being designed to emulate what boils down to raster 'painting' so much more common than insistence on raster programs emulating the way one works in vector programs? Truthfully, it's just because too many are intimidated by drawing paths. It's a new and different tactil
  19. I never do, because of stuff like this: Call me an 'old school' curmudgeon. 50 auto-generated nodes to draw a curve that should have no more than 3 intelligently-placed ones? It just makes my skin crawl, especially in anything supposed to be commercial-quality vector-based work. That's why I just don't care much for instant-gratification 'brush-like' features in vector-based drawing programs in general. How many slightly-different tool interfaces trying to emulate free-form scribbling with some kind of analog brush or marker does a vector drawing program need to have? It'
  20. People not familiar with it need to understand: "Graphic Find & Replace" was the name for FreeHand's search-by-attribute feature set. It didn't mean it was always used to replace the found attributes with a different value. It could be used to find OR to find and replace. For example, if you are dealing with stroke weight, you don't need to find (i.e., select) AND replace. Once paths of the specified weight (or range) are selected, you can simply use the standard interface to apply the desired weight to the then-current selection. Same goes for fill colors and most other graphic attri
  21. Dialogs? FreeHand's GF&R (if that's what you're referring to) was not dialogs. It was a dedicated non-modal palette. And it was not at all onerous to use for simple "select same" functionality. Even when selecting objects of the same value, it was right there, on my second monitor, already configured with the settings I need. I didn't have to repeatedly dig down to a second-tier sub-menu under the primary menu bar each and every time I used one of its options. "Select Same" means just that: The same weight, color, whatever. So for example, you're working with a complicated file
  22. You mean just like when Affinity devs asked those who consider an auto-tracing feature to be so 'fundamental' and 'essential' that the program is 'useless' to them without it, to post some before-and-after examples? That still hasn't happened, yet the (often rude) ranting continues. I'm just saying: This is not just a user-to-Serif forum about desired features; it's as much a user-to-user forum for discussions of the merits of features. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a forum; it would just be a one-way 'black hole' for feature requests to be sent to the vendor, just like it was in the Adobe fo
  23. Instead of just ranting, why don't you guys use the time for constructive discussion about how such a feature should or could be best implemented? Frankly, I cringe every time I hear someone say "Select Same"; clearly a reference to Adobe Illustrator's mediocre implementation. It also was very long-in-coming, and when it finally happened, it was a face-palm disappointment to FreeHand users who for years prior had become accustomed to its Graphic Find & Replace feature. I have yet to see its match in any mainstream 2D drawing program. JET
  24. But I dare say even a hobbyist drawing a layout for the backyard garden would put 1in =10 ft to good and effective use. It will become even more important when Affinity finally has dimensioning tools and objects. For example, suppose…oh, I don't know…some poor fool were doing something so dubious as writing a book on axonometric drawing and showed dimensions as inches for the US market. He should be able to just change the working scale of the drawings to have the dimension objects auto-update to metric values. JET
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. 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.