Jump to content

JET_Affinity

Members
  • Content Count

    503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JET_Affinity

  1. Importing DXF format exported from CAD programs in order to create visually appealing commercial artwork suitable for product marketing is squarely within the purview of general-purpose vector-based mainstream 2D illustration and design programs. And that's why most competing programs provide for it. And that's why I fully expect that Affinity will also provide for it—when the time is right from a development standpoint—which is entirely and appropriately at the discretion of the company which owns and develops the program. Like many other desired things, DXF is simply not, at p
  2. It would not make sense to be able to marquee select (quote 1) the parameter handles of live shape objects (quote 3), because those handles do different things for different kinds of live shapes. It's standard-fare in any drawing program that provides live shape objects with adjustable parameters to have to "break apart," "ungroup", "expand", "convert to path", etc., those objects before being able to directly manipulate their individual Bezier nodes and handles. Again, I'm not enamored with Affinity's selection scheme either. I think it needs serious re-work, especially in regard
  3. Correct. First, I'm not particularly enamored with Affinity's selection interface, either. But... Illustrator has been embarrassingly devoid of geometrically functional "shape primitives" for most of its history. Its shape tools created nothing but basic Bezier paths. With all its marketing ballyhoo about 'live effects' it couldn't, for example, even adjust the corner radii of a rounded rectangle because there was no actual rounded rectangle object; as soon as it was drawn and deselected, it was just an ordinary eight segment path. Same thing for its polygon, star, and ellipse tools.
  4. Have you been keeping up with the current beta? If not, you should. It's still not "there" yet, but work is at least being done in this area. You can download and install the current beta and run it next to the release version. The most debilitating Achilles heel of this program, in the context of serious illustration, is its insistence on transformations being based upon infernal bounding box handles instead of providing a set of transform tools that work by dragging and snapping sub-selections of nodes and segments. I don't know if the rationale is too much focus on 'finger paintin
  5. There are other very vocal threads about warping, enveloping, etc., etc. I'm sure it will be added. But as with many things, the devil is in the details of how it's actually implemented. Conventional-wisdom envelope warping is still not the same thing as the old 'standard' ways of orienting live text on a curve (especially the all-important vertical skew). It's way past time for some well-thought-out innovation in that area, so it's my hope that Affinity intends to pursue that. I share your pain, though. It's a tedious thing to try to explain many of the elegant things about FreeHand to u
  6. Quite the contrary: Defining a bunch of willy-nilly non-'global' color swatches in the same mixed bag with a bunch of 'global' swatches is bad practice that leads to cluttered confusion (and potential production errors). In Altsys FreeHand, there was no 'global' versus 'non-global' distinction in swatches. All user-defined colors automatically became 'global' as soon as they were dragged from the Color Mixer palette to Swatches palette. That's how it should be in every such program. That's the intuitive meaning of defining a color. Editing the definition of a color should of course update
  7. The concept of so-called 'artboards' is not impractical. Far from it. (How best to implement it, of course, is a matter of discussion.) Think of it like this: The general interface metaphor of pages in a page-layout program is that of a bound book: flipping a stack of same-size pages in a fixed sequence, viewing them as 2-page spreads. The general interface metaphor of artboards in a vector-based illustration and design program is that of freely spreading and freely arranging related but individual sheets of a project—which may be of different sizes and orientations—on the con
  8. It's generically referred to as "inline graphics" (having a graphic flow in line with live text). It's nothing new. Vector based drawing programs, page layout programs, and even word processors have provided for inline graphics since way back. Since vector-based drawing programs also commonly provide for "path text" (flowing text along a path), those which provide for inline graphics let you combine the two, as demonstrated. This is also nothing new. Other vector drawing programs have had this ability for decades, the notable exception being Adobe Illustrator. (As of CS6. I don't rent sof
  9. Xara Designer Pro is a nice program in a lot of ways, but it is crippled for serious illustration by its sub-standard primary Bezier path drawing tool. It's the main reason I seldom use it, and haven't updated it since just before the '365' version that began its also flirting with rental-based licensing. Xara documentation pushes its Node Tool as its primary path drawing tool, and treats its Pen Tool as a 'me, too' afterthought; a necessary evil. Both are sub-standard. I was complaining about this since first using it; even demonstrating the difference in a "comparison race" with a profi
  10. This was also asked by someone at Affinity 5 years ago: But I don't see any. Quite suitable alternatives have been mentioned repeatedly in these threads requesting yet another autotrace feature. JET
  11. Um…that's what user forums are. Nonsense. The former in no way implies the latter. And the contrary is more often demonstrated in this forum than in any other software user forum in which I participate. But there's no need for the company's developers to answer each and every repetitive rant. And you said "either…", which implies an "or…", which you did not provide. So I will: ...or the Affinity team (i.e., the privately owned company) is following the development path (priorities and sequence) which makes most senses for its (not your; not my) product development, and has ne
  12. Something I hope all would consider: The intents (and therefore requirements) of distorting type, as opposed to general artwork. I grew up working in sign shops, long before the advent of digital type. (I'm proud to say I can still twirl a lettering quill.) The trouble with automated pre-set envelope distortions as usually implemented is that they treat type the same way they treat any other vector paths, when usually it shouldn't be. I'm not talking about deliberate effects like the water-drop examples. I'm talking about the ubiquitous things like curving what is supposed to read
  13. Adobe (and too many of its neophyte users) love to go on about the 'integration' of its applications. Assigning the same trendy graphics designer to rework the styling of windows and toolboxes is not functional integration. Nor is marketing word games. (Remember the 'PDF is now Illustrator's native format' hype?) How many know that InDesign can't really import an Illustrator file (as of CS6; I don't rent software)? It just imports the dumbed-down PDF version of the content (if there is any). Bear in mind that many 'Adobe' apps were acquired from other companies. To refocus on th
  14. Yes, I know it has one. Go back and read what I said. It's very lame compared to the status quo, lacking the near universal interface of mousing down and dragging to extract handles from nodes as you place them, and using momentary keyboard options to fluidly control node type and handle behaviors as you go, which is far more efficient and productive than the tedious process of click, click, clicking to place nodes and then going back to bend, bend, bend segments. James
  15. I'm not frustrated with the pace. I'm frustrated with some of Affinity's truly fundamental directions; things like the dependency upon lame bounding box handles for routine transformations, and the 'a page is a layer is a clipping path' thing. Like you, I still use CS6. But not because of what Affinity lacks; simply because I paid for it as a perpetual license. That's what perpetual licenses are all about; not being held captive to every machination of the vendor. The moment Adobe announced its Captive Creative licensing crap, I did two things: Stopped buying Adobe software. S
  16. This: Not this: It's not 'running away' to use multiple programs of the same genre. It's smart to be familiar with multiple programs. That's how you avoid becoming a Captive Creative to one particular vendor. Ever since the beginning of the 'desktop revolution' of the mid 80s, I've considered it a matter of simple professionalism (and professional self-preservation) to maintain at least working familiarity with as many of the mainstream softwares applicable to my work as I practically can. How can one claim to 'compare', let alone 'prefer' one software over another, i
  17. In the current context of roughening paths, other FreeHand users may recall that a few versions before its acquistion by Adobe, Macromedia added a simple "fractal" option that basically: divided straight segments into thirds reshaped the middle third (for example, making it into a peak) repeated that same alteration on the segments of that peak …and repeated that for a user-specified number of iterations. Something else to consider is, what are we really doing when using a "roughen" command? Usually, we're trying add an element of apparent "randomness" within the ot
  18. Of course there's nothing wrong with comparing to other programs, and nothing wrong with mentioning Adobe Illustrator (by name; no need to 'encode' it). That's not the issue. The issue is that too many users effectively demand that something 'absolutely essential' (everyone's pet feature is the most 'absolutely essential deal-breaking omission that must be addressed right now, or else!') be implemented just like it is in Illustrator, under the assumption that just because Adobe dominates the market, Illustrator's treatment must be 'best'. It's often rather transparent that many of the mos
  19. And, I dare say, it still cannot even understand multiple math operators in an expression, e.g., "2*3+1" or "(2*3)+1". For even that kind of grade-school arithmetic, you still have to dink around in the modal dialog, making individual single-operator expressions, one at a time, committing each by clicking outside the field, then entering the next single-operator expression. JET
  20. So you're saying you can enter "(1.5*3.25)+3" into a dimension field in Illustrator's Rectangle Tool's modal dialog box, or enter "3.5*sin(35.26)" into the vertical field of the Scale Tool's modal dialog, and have it evaluate correctly? JET
  21. From a user's conceptual perspective, Layers and Pages are fundamentally and purposefully distinct. Proper layers provide a document level organizational mechanism based on the users' working purposes that is independent of pages. That's why they exist. Moving objects onto, off of, or between pages has no business changing their position in the object stacking order of the whole document. It's called a "Layers Palette" for a reason: From the beginning in the 80s, the Layers Palettes in object-based graphics programs did not even list objects. That unnecessary (and frankly, ill-conceived)
  22. As of CS6 it doesn't. (I can't speak to later version, because I don't rent software.) Simply try using more than one math operator (i.e., not just addition / subtraction or multiplication / division, but both) and parenthesis in an expression. That was always one of FreeHand's advantages over Illustrator. But Affinity goes even beyond that by supporting trig functions. Yes, useless. What good is a measuring tool that doesn't reliably abide by snaps? I don't use it either, because it's useless. Illustrator's Line Tool makes a better "measure tool," and that's what I use whenever I need
  23. Matt, Unless I missed it, that video doesn't show an instance of an object being dragged entirely onto the pasteboard (not intersecting any Artboard). Does it disappear if you do that? Corrections welcome, but as best I've been able to discern, the confusing "universal layer" thing repeatedly mentioned in these threads is just a term coined by a user trying to communicate that in most graphics programs involving artboards (e.g., Illustrator) or pages (e.g., FreeHand) or even page spreads (e.g., InDesign), the artboard or page is effectively just treated as a rectangular region within
  24. That's also why I flatly refuse to rent business-critical graphics software, despite the "oh, well, it's the modern way" rationale of those who begrudgingly succumb to such marketing machinations. The InD problem is a case-in-point. As soon as Adobe announced its take-it-or-leave-it Captive Customers licensing, I stopped updating my theretofore faithfully-renewed Master Collection license and started deliberately letting my use of Adobe applications wither on the vine. In other words, I started doing with Adobe apps exactly what Adobe effectively forced longtime FreeHand users to do with
×
×
  • 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.