Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JET_Affinity

  1. While I understand and mostly agree with the gist of your post, some caution is called for in perpetuating misconceptions—especially confusing to newcomers—by over-simplification and over-generalization. A PDF exported from some other program is not the same thing as a native Illustrator file. Illustrator can "open" a PDF because when it comes down to it, PDF started as a subset of PostScript and Illustrator is a full-blown PostScript interpreter. Illustrator can "open" a PDF in the same sense that Illustrator can "open" a PostScript file. Think of a PDF as a print stream "captu
  2. In such comparisons, count the clicks. In Illustrator: Select the Rectangle tool. Click (don't drag) the artboard. Key dimensions into the resulting modal dialog. Tap Enter to close the dialog. In Affinity: Select a Shape tool. Mousedown and drag the artboard. Key the dimensions into the non-modal Transform Panel. Tap Enter to commit the values. One is actually as efficient as the other. It's just a matter of being too habituated to Illustrators archaic plethora of modal dialogs. Affinity's treatment is arguably a more elegant proces
  3. It is compared to FreeHand's Graphic Find & Replace, which appeared well before, and which helped drive demand for something like it in Adobe Illustrator—which still fell short, just like other features preceded by FreeHand. Illustrator is not the model to emulate. "Select Same" is very weak compared to selecting properties based on user-specified ranges of values (again, per FreeHand's GF&R). Give Serif time to raise the bar, folks. Get over the Illustrator addiction to mediocrity. JET
  4. Such forum sections exists so that users can not only make suggestions, but also discuss the merits of suggestions. Otherwise, there would be no need for a forum; you would simply submit requests in a one-way "suggestion box." JET
  5. FreeHand provided a pair of simple, elegant, Retract and Auto-Extend buttons in its excellent Inspector palette; one each for incoming and outgoing curve handles. You could, for example, select one or any number of nodes, and simply click the outgoing Retract button. The outgoing handles of all selected nodes would be retracted (i.e., made coincident with the node). This did not disturb the node type (Corner, Curve, or Connector). The Auto-Extend buttons would extend retracted handles by the common 1/3 distance to the adjacent node, without altering their directions, if the node is a Curv
  6. There is nothing new about that. In other words: Reason 1 is a manifestation of the common "if it's vector, it's good" myth; the misconception that something is gained in the sense of vector-based resolution independence by autotracing a bad bitmap. Reason 2 is why—ever since the early advent of Gerber vinyl cutters in the sign trade—there are so many signs produced which, when observed up close have very jagged cuts; essentially the same conceptual problem. In other words (no personal offense intended; as I said these are both very old and common practices) you are (at lea
  7. Actually, I do, in one regard: they demonstrated the elegantly textured things one can do with diffusion-dither bitmaps. (Remember some of the beautiful games that were simply HyperCard stacks with entirely 1-bit images?) It's a pity that so few current drawing programs provide 1-bit diffusion as a rasterization option. For just one example, it's a great way to add shading to technical drawings. Okay. Back on topic so I don't get kicked out: So everyone wants a vector envelope feature. Got it. JET
  8. There is a blast from my past. Good old System 8.6 8.6? You youngsters! I remember using it as a Macintosh "desk accessory" on a 9" monochrome monitor. Canvas is still around, and I still maintain my license. CanvasGFX is now a separate company again, which I sense (and hope) will give it the more dedicated development attention it deserves. It's treatment of switching a given object between its "transformed" and "untransformed" dimensions (and keeping it there) is representative of just one of the functions I'd like to see better implemented in Affinity. As I recall, its Lens
  9. But Mac only. So—to appropriate the claim cited by every forum visitor angrily demanding a specific timeline for any given specific pet feature—"it is of no use to me." Just as one could do with most any other vector-based program to which one is habituated. For example, those who are really convinced Adobe Illustrator's is the envelope distortion to beat all envelope distortions, can export their paths to Illustrator, warp them, copy them back to Affinity. One could do the same with Canvas, Draw, Inkscape…anything with a reasonable exchange format path for Bezier curves. All as a work
  10. No argument there. Merely dragging something from one artboard to another, or from an artboard to the pasteboard has no business altering the object stacking order. A page (artboard) in a freeform "page spreading" metaphor should not be a mere clipping path. It should simply be a region of the pasteboard. But many users go nuts when a drawing program won't visually "clip" bleeding objects to the page or bleed area. That has never been a problem to me. I commonly store things entirely off the artboard(s), and when designing for bleeds, I manually trim bleeding objects midway between the tr
  11. Stroke width settings are essentially "live effects." For any kind of NC fabrication, using stroke widths to create the appearance of offset paths does not provide actual separate paths for the NC machine to follow. Path blends and offset paths are so commonly used functions that I'm sure they are planned, and as I recall have been acknowledged by the Devs as being in the plans. Some kind of "virtual segment" detection or "path builder" tool is also pretty much standard fare these days, so I doubt that the Devs are unaware of the need. But whenever wondering why any obvious feature i
  12. Generally, settings for any raster-based live effect should be provided at the object level, not at the document level. JET
  13. At least as of version CS6, Adobe Illustrator has no separate Pattern Panel. (I can't speak to rental-only versions, because I don't and won't rent software.) Patterns are stored in the Swatches palette, along with colors, tints, and grads. That panel has an option by which to filter Swatches by type, but there is no separate Pattern Panel other than the Pattern Options panel, in which you define parameters for a given Pattern. But it is not a list organizer of the Patterns in the document. JET
  14. Amen. Illustrator's historic nemesis, FreeHand, originally had a single page residing in a limited size pasteboard, much like Illustrator. Macromedia gave FreeHand multiple pages long before Illustrator ever acquired multiple "artboards". In the arguments that ensued throughout the years between, during which Illustrator devotees insisted that giving Illustrator the ability to have a "page 2" would constitute the end of all that is holy, I explained the advantage with the following: A conventional-wisdom page-layout program has a page-flipping metaphor. All same-size pages stacked li
  15. I'm on Windows nowadays, but I "grew up" on Macs. I don't consider it a platform thing. It's an intuitive organization and drill-down thing. That said, though, I do generally find it annoying whenever the interface for a desktop application is designed as if I'm assumed to be working with my thumbs on a cell phone. While driving. JET
  16. Sorry, but I don't follow your seeming elevation of design over illustration. Realistic or technical commercial Illustration is a far more exacting discipline, requiring precise detail editing at the level of precisely shaped freeform paths; not just upper level constructs with automatic parameters. Gradients are entirely different constructs from object blends. Gradients are "canned" algorithmic rendering commands. In terms of commercial print reproduction, they are specific PostScript objects understood by the printing engine. They actually vary according to the resolution of the ima
  17. Path blends have been a basic feature of Bezier drawing programs since the very early days. So I'm sure it will be added to Affinity. Blends are one of the primary ways to achieve accurately controlled shading in vector-based illustrations. But once again; those only familiar with Illustrator need to understand that program is very often not the model to which to aspire. Illustrator's basic blend function has chronic problems which corresponding features in other programs don't; especially when it comes to blends on a spine path. For one example, in Illustrator, the spacing of the in
  18. No, they're merely skewed vertically. That's one of the "old standard" pathType variations. FreeHand and some other programs had it long before Illustrator, which as I recall didn't gain it until around version 8 or 10. It's one of the most useful, but just like the normal rotating of the characters' baselines along the path, the horizonal edges of the glyphs remain straight. So they work best when the type size is small relative to the tightness of the curve. Both rotating and skewing characters along the path are useful for things like the ubiquitous text surrounding a circular or oval
  19. People love to complain about how long it is taking for their favorite "must have" feature to be implemented. Yet the above was requested of those who want this feature over 4 years ago, and I still see no examples posted by those who consider auto-tracing so essential. Please show some real-world examples demonstrating why you consider auto-tracing essential. Please post screenshots of both the "before" (the original raster) and "after" (auto-trace results), not merely at the same size, but zoomed in sufficiently to make the actual functional improvement evident. And show the results be
  20. Selection in general still needs a lot of work. It seems that the Node Transform tool itself was added in reaction to shortcomings of the Node Tool. This application now has three primary selection tools, whereas most programs like it have the Adobe-esque two, which FreeHand's functionality always surpassed with but one. Too much "hard switching" between tools (as opposed to using momentary modifiers). I do appreciate the Node Transform Tool's novel ability to uniformly scale as it rotates (which can be overridden by a momentary modifier keypress) in order to snap to existing artwork. But
  21. Adobe is a company. If you're talking about Photoshop (the program with the Constrain option you favor when bending segments), yes, I've used it pretty extensively since version 1 through version CS6 (I don't rent graphics software). And yes, if it were possible to momentarily toggle the behavior by means of a keyboard modifier while in the act of a single bend move, I would use it. Something I've always disliked about bending paths in both Photoshop and Illustrator is that the very same moves with the inelegantly named Direct Selection Tool doesn't bend straight segments; it moves them.
  22. But not really surprising, given that many of Adobe's graphics apps (including Photoshop) were acquired. One of the advantages of the Affinity platform is that all three of its "legs" (raster, vector, assembly) seem to have been conceived and are being developed together as a cohesive platform, not as a mere marketing bundle of separately-developed (or acquired) programs. The "integration" (something Adobe has always loved to banter about) is deeper than mere interface window dressing. Which is why I tend to "weep and moan" whenever I hear users demand conforming to the "mean ol' lev
  • 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.