Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

JET_Affinity

Members
  • Posts

    529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Aammppaa in Set selection box   
    Having just downloaded the 2.4.0.2301 update, the first thing I've done is rush to check again the behavior of this feature, which—to me—is the most important of all in the new beta. I'm still somewhat disappointed:
    Unless I'm missing something, if I…
    Select multiple objects, one of which is a diagonally-oriented (relative to the page) simple, straight path drawn with the Pen. Set that straight path as the Key Object. Select_Set Selection Box. …then the bounding boxes of the objects other than the straight path do not re-orient to that of the straight path. Instead, they seem to either re-orient to one of the selected but non-key objects, or sometimes even become skewed bounding boxes.
    First off, there is nothing intuitive about this behavior. Moreover, it wrecks what is, for my purposes, the greatest potential of a feature that (at long last) enables us to re-orient the scale handles independently of the current orientation of the content of the bounding box.
    Set Selection Box should work the same way when the Key Object is an open straight path created with the Pen, as when any other object is the Key Object.
    One of the first things mentioned in the initial announcement of this feature is isometric drawing. Well, a very basic principle of axonometric drawing (not just isometric) is that the minor diameter of any ellipse (that is a projection of a tilted circle) is always parallel to its 'thrust line' (the 'axis' that the ellipse 'orbits'). Failure to do that is the 'dead giveaway' of one of the most common errors in technical illustration. It instantly 'jumps off the page' and 'hurts the eyes' of an experienced technical illustrator.
    But here's the thing: That principle of circles always being foreshortened in the direction parallel to their 'thrust lines' does not just apply to circles. It applies to literally any planar shape(s). Whole labels. Whole floorplans. Everything.
    We need to be able to do this:
    Draw something 'in-the-flat', no matter how simple or elaborate. Draw a simple, single-segment, straight path in any diagonal direction (the 'thrust line' that is perpendicular to the plane of the object(s) about to be scaled). (We should not have to use a box or anything other than a straight path, just to serve as a scale direction). Rotate the bounding box(es) of the objects to be scaled without rotating their contents, thereby snapping the scale handles into parallel with the 'thrust line'. Deselect the 'thrust line'. Scale the other selected objects in the direction parallel to the 'thrust line'. It should be obvious that the need to simply draw a simple straight path in any required direction and have it serve as the 'thrust line' is essential (and intuitive).
    That feature, if implemented as described, would be something that to my knowledge does not exist in competing mainstream 2D general-purpose vector drawing programs.
    But here's the other thing: I don't see why the interface for this can't be more intuitive and more elegant:
    Simply provide a momentary keyboard shortcut that, when dragging the 'lollypop' bounding box rotation handle, causes the bounding box to rotate without rotating its content. And make that rotation aware of active Snap settings. Seems to me, that would be more direct and intuitively discoverable than the menu selections, and on-page tactile instead of just tucked away in a menu.
    Lest anyone think this is only about mechanically-correct tech drawing…it's not. Example:
    Suppose I'm not just a tech illustrator, but also a caricaturist. Everyone knows that every time Pinocchijoe opens his mouth, his nose grows. So suppose I've drawn a series of cartoon frames in which Pinocchijoe is looking up at the sky, down at his feet, for the nearest stage exit, etc. I need to increasingly stretch his nose in the corresponding direction in which he's looking in each subsequent frame. So I simply:
    Select the object(s) that comprise his nose Set the transform anchor at the base of his nose mousedown on the lollypop, press the keyboard modifier, and rotate the bounding box around its content mousedown on the now correctly-oriented scale handle and drag it to scale the selection in the needed direction What am I missing here?
    JET
  2. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from ThatMikeGuy in Double click / tap on object to switch from node to move tool   
    I whole-heartedly agree with your comment re FreeHand. But even in that context, this is still true:
    One of the huge advantages of FreeHand was its direct and convenient provision for drawing in 'hairline' mode; wherein paths are displayed at the smallest stroke width, regardless of zoom. Greatly enhanced accuracy confidence, and was my default mode whenever drawing Bezier paths. Illustrator's 'Outline Mode' (or whatever it's called; don't remember for sure, and don't have Illustrator installed on this laptop)—is a poor substitute. As a tedious workaround, I always draw paths in Illustrator using the .25 pt. stroke width, and apply Styles thereafter. Pain in the neck, which can be said of many many things in Illustrator compared to FreeHand.
    So, yeah, something needs to be re-worked in the doubleClick to switch tools. Its being dependent upon clicking a path's stroke width versus its path is not good interface design.
    Even given that, we FreeHand users recall that It never needed two selection tools, and only added a mimic of Illustrator's so-called 'Direct Selection Tool' as a conciliatory move for Illustrator-habituated users too impatient to come to understand that FreeHand's single Selection Tool was far more efficient than Illustrator's three separate path manipulation tools (the third being the stupid 'Convert Anchor Point Tool'). It was not until the very last version of FreeHand that the 'white pointer'—as we called it—was even given a single (and still insignificant) function that couldn't be done with the single 'black pointer.'
    Well-versed FreeHand users have yet to see any Bezier drawing program that matches FreeHand's interface elegance.
    JET
  3. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from v_kyr in Scripting   
    Exactly. In plain language for graphics people who have yet to get their feet wet in scripting:
    JavaScript is the language used to script in, for example, Adobe Illustrator. JavaScript is not difficult for non-programmers to learn, and is ubiquitous. But much of what you can accomplish with JavaScript in Illustrator relies on Adobe's so-called ExtendScript (Adobe's 'extension' to JavaScript) and ScriptUI. These effectively provide the scripting user a set of 'pre-built' JavaScript constructs and objects that are specific to Adobe applications. Things like:
    Modal dialogs that you can include in your scripts to appear within the program to, for example, prompt the user of your script to do something, like input desired values or select specific result options. Non-modal interactive 'control panels' that you can include in your scripts to remain visible within Illustrator while the user works with the script to, for example, try, preview, and change the result while the script is running, before committing it. A thorough (and thoroughly documented) Object Model that is a 'library' of Illustrator-specific constructs and their properties and methods. Those are the things that make application-specific scripting far more than just a glorified 'macro' for automating repetitive tasks like exporting files or executing a series of standard commands. They effectively inform the scripting language (JavaScript) of the 'under-the-hood' (i.e., under-the-interface) details of the program. They effectively empower you, the user, to create custom functions and features way beyond the standard feature set of the program. Just one example, for clarity:
    One of my earliest Illustrator JavaScripts (well over a decade ago; maybe two?) is for drawing geometrically correct vector spheres at any desired orientation in a matter of seconds. When launched, the script presents a series of user prompts asking for the desired number of latitude and longitude lines and the angle at which the pole of the sphere is tilted.
    I still use that script to this day (along with a considerable collection of others). Those are the kinds of things I am interested in scripting in Affinity Designer—adding full-blown drawing features to the program for things that it can't do in its standard feature set—as opposed to just 'recording' and 'playing back' a series of existing commands. (Realize, Adobe applications have had that, too—long before they had their JavaScript implementation—in the form of their so-called 'Actions' feature.)
    I seriously hope the currently underway development of scripting support for Affinity includes full focus on a comprehensive application-specific object model and clear, thorough reference documentation of it upon its initial release.
    JET
  4. Thanks
    JET_Affinity reacted to v_kyr in Scripting   
    Well depends on how you interpret "outside affinity", or "run outside affinity". Application specific scripting (in some choosen scripting language) is usually performed against an by an application provided programming API, where in turn (the API itself) is tighly coupled to the application and thus offers access to certain available made internal functions/methods offered by the application. The scripting implementation (in some choosen language/dialect) then uses that application API, together with possible other third-party scripting language based modules/APIs, in order to perform certain operations in the context of the application it is meant for.
    Many functionality wise things (automation etc.) do highly depend on what an corresponding app API offers to be accessed and reused here, also how the scripting context itself then is intended to be executed, aka if just from inside of an running app, or more flexible from outside without the need of the app itself to be running etc.
     
  5. Like
    JET_Affinity reacted to MikeTO in Double click / tap on object to switch from node to move tool   
    If you hit the segment line (path) of the stroke (shown with the blue line), it will add a node but if you hit the green part of the stroke in this screenshot it will toggle tools. The problem of course is that not all paths have enough stroke area to differentiate the target.

  6. Like
    JET_Affinity reacted to ThatMikeGuy in Double click / tap on object to switch from node to move tool   
    I love this feature. Reminds me of Freehand and anything that takes us closer to Freehand is great!
  7. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Frozen Death Knight in Blend tool in Designer   
    Well, I, for one, am not.
    No one applauds what Serif is doing more than I. But I will never pay extorsive subscription fees for mission-critical software, effectively surrendering my own work as hostage to the vendor.
    It's not a matter of 'being able to afford it'. It's a matter of principle. I maintained my (not cheap) perpetual license to Adobe's Master Collection from its initial release until the day Adobe foisted its Captive Creator licensing scheme upon its decades-long users. That very day was full-stop. I immediately initiated my own methodical plan for eliminating dependence upon Adobe, which has not received one red cent from me since.
    Indeed, the very marketing myth 'promise' of subscription-based software fees is that it's 'more affordable' to 'starving artists' than the lump sum payment of a perpetual license. It's the same age-old scam of saying renting a roof over your head is 'cheaper' than owning it.
    I'm sure Serif is profitable and knows quite well what it's doing. A large part of what Serif is doing is the long-overdue embodiment of competition: providing dramatically higher price/function value in a market segment that has been artificially overpriced for ages.
    2D bezier based drawing is not rocket science anymore. Adobe and its ilk still cling desperately to the antiquated price structure of long-gone days when a 3-color letter-size inkjet printer cost ten times what far more capable machines go for now, even despite decades of inflation.
    Serif is developing its products at its methodical rate, with a much-appreciated eye toward innovation; not just implementing tit-for-tat, copycat, me, too, same-old features.
    Learn to exploit what it provides. Workaround what is not yet implemented. Provide at least marginal originality in feedback.
    JET
  8. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from _Th in Blend tool in Designer   
    Well, I, for one, am not.
    No one applauds what Serif is doing more than I. But I will never pay extorsive subscription fees for mission-critical software, effectively surrendering my own work as hostage to the vendor.
    It's not a matter of 'being able to afford it'. It's a matter of principle. I maintained my (not cheap) perpetual license to Adobe's Master Collection from its initial release until the day Adobe foisted its Captive Creator licensing scheme upon its decades-long users. That very day was full-stop. I immediately initiated my own methodical plan for eliminating dependence upon Adobe, which has not received one red cent from me since.
    Indeed, the very marketing myth 'promise' of subscription-based software fees is that it's 'more affordable' to 'starving artists' than the lump sum payment of a perpetual license. It's the same age-old scam of saying renting a roof over your head is 'cheaper' than owning it.
    I'm sure Serif is profitable and knows quite well what it's doing. A large part of what Serif is doing is the long-overdue embodiment of competition: providing dramatically higher price/function value in a market segment that has been artificially overpriced for ages.
    2D bezier based drawing is not rocket science anymore. Adobe and its ilk still cling desperately to the antiquated price structure of long-gone days when a 3-color letter-size inkjet printer cost ten times what far more capable machines go for now, even despite decades of inflation.
    Serif is developing its products at its methodical rate, with a much-appreciated eye toward innovation; not just implementing tit-for-tat, copycat, me, too, same-old features.
    Learn to exploit what it provides. Workaround what is not yet implemented. Provide at least marginal originality in feedback.
    JET
  9. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Alfred in Blend tool in Designer   
    Well, I, for one, am not.
    No one applauds what Serif is doing more than I. But I will never pay extorsive subscription fees for mission-critical software, effectively surrendering my own work as hostage to the vendor.
    It's not a matter of 'being able to afford it'. It's a matter of principle. I maintained my (not cheap) perpetual license to Adobe's Master Collection from its initial release until the day Adobe foisted its Captive Creator licensing scheme upon its decades-long users. That very day was full-stop. I immediately initiated my own methodical plan for eliminating dependence upon Adobe, which has not received one red cent from me since.
    Indeed, the very marketing myth 'promise' of subscription-based software fees is that it's 'more affordable' to 'starving artists' than the lump sum payment of a perpetual license. It's the same age-old scam of saying renting a roof over your head is 'cheaper' than owning it.
    I'm sure Serif is profitable and knows quite well what it's doing. A large part of what Serif is doing is the long-overdue embodiment of competition: providing dramatically higher price/function value in a market segment that has been artificially overpriced for ages.
    2D bezier based drawing is not rocket science anymore. Adobe and its ilk still cling desperately to the antiquated price structure of long-gone days when a 3-color letter-size inkjet printer cost ten times what far more capable machines go for now, even despite decades of inflation.
    Serif is developing its products at its methodical rate, with a much-appreciated eye toward innovation; not just implementing tit-for-tat, copycat, me, too, same-old features.
    Learn to exploit what it provides. Workaround what is not yet implemented. Provide at least marginal originality in feedback.
    JET
  10. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from tzvi20 in Blend tool in Designer   
    Well, I, for one, am not.
    No one applauds what Serif is doing more than I. But I will never pay extorsive subscription fees for mission-critical software, effectively surrendering my own work as hostage to the vendor.
    It's not a matter of 'being able to afford it'. It's a matter of principle. I maintained my (not cheap) perpetual license to Adobe's Master Collection from its initial release until the day Adobe foisted its Captive Creator licensing scheme upon its decades-long users. That very day was full-stop. I immediately initiated my own methodical plan for eliminating dependence upon Adobe, which has not received one red cent from me since.
    Indeed, the very marketing myth 'promise' of subscription-based software fees is that it's 'more affordable' to 'starving artists' than the lump sum payment of a perpetual license. It's the same age-old scam of saying renting a roof over your head is 'cheaper' than owning it.
    I'm sure Serif is profitable and knows quite well what it's doing. A large part of what Serif is doing is the long-overdue embodiment of competition: providing dramatically higher price/function value in a market segment that has been artificially overpriced for ages.
    2D bezier based drawing is not rocket science anymore. Adobe and its ilk still cling desperately to the antiquated price structure of long-gone days when a 3-color letter-size inkjet printer cost ten times what far more capable machines go for now, even despite decades of inflation.
    Serif is developing its products at its methodical rate, with a much-appreciated eye toward innovation; not just implementing tit-for-tat, copycat, me, too, same-old features.
    Learn to exploit what it provides. Workaround what is not yet implemented. Provide at least marginal originality in feedback.
    JET
  11. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Old Bruce in Blend tool in Designer   
    Well, I, for one, am not.
    No one applauds what Serif is doing more than I. But I will never pay extorsive subscription fees for mission-critical software, effectively surrendering my own work as hostage to the vendor.
    It's not a matter of 'being able to afford it'. It's a matter of principle. I maintained my (not cheap) perpetual license to Adobe's Master Collection from its initial release until the day Adobe foisted its Captive Creator licensing scheme upon its decades-long users. That very day was full-stop. I immediately initiated my own methodical plan for eliminating dependence upon Adobe, which has not received one red cent from me since.
    Indeed, the very marketing myth 'promise' of subscription-based software fees is that it's 'more affordable' to 'starving artists' than the lump sum payment of a perpetual license. It's the same age-old scam of saying renting a roof over your head is 'cheaper' than owning it.
    I'm sure Serif is profitable and knows quite well what it's doing. A large part of what Serif is doing is the long-overdue embodiment of competition: providing dramatically higher price/function value in a market segment that has been artificially overpriced for ages.
    2D bezier based drawing is not rocket science anymore. Adobe and its ilk still cling desperately to the antiquated price structure of long-gone days when a 3-color letter-size inkjet printer cost ten times what far more capable machines go for now, even despite decades of inflation.
    Serif is developing its products at its methodical rate, with a much-appreciated eye toward innovation; not just implementing tit-for-tat, copycat, me, too, same-old features.
    Learn to exploit what it provides. Workaround what is not yet implemented. Provide at least marginal originality in feedback.
    JET
  12. Like
    JET_Affinity reacted to Chills in Why won't Serif listen to customer needs and create a Lightroom alternative for us?   
    I am not sure whether that is true any more.
    I see in the Resolve Forums many moving from Adobe.
    I think it is true that the hobby, semi pro and some pro's are moving to the "cheap" options. However, many professionals (never mind the rest) simply don't want the Adobe Subscription model. 
     
  13. Like
    JET_Affinity reacted to Optische Ausrichtung in Why won't Serif listen to customer needs and create a Lightroom alternative for us?   
    Why won't Adobe listen to customer needs and develop a non-subscription version of its software?
     
  14. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Bryan Rieger in Suggestion: Rebrand Point Transform Tool to 'Scale Tool' or similar   
    "…but not if you press shift"
    So?? It doesn't scale if you press Ctrl {Windows} either. But without pressing a modifier key it both scales and rotates in one move. So how would "scale" be a more appropriate name than "transform"?
    Look; I'm all for intuitive and consistent terminology. And I've been at this for a while, too. I cut my vector-drawing teeth in Altsys Fontographer—the progenitor of FreeHand, before Illustrator even existed—on a Mac Plus. But egads, man, there's no real issue in this instance. Dear departed Aunt Mollie would call this "straining at a gnat to swallow an elephant".
    For a real interface terminology issue, look no further than the current abuse of the "Pages" (or Artboards) and "Layers" terms. What is intuitive about starting a new document which displays a working area that certainly looks like a  page, drawing an ellipse on that 'non-page', and having the ellipse immediately listed in a Panel named "Layers" in which there are no Layers (or Pages)? Since when is a single ellipse a 'Layer'? This is supposed to be intuitive terminology convention? But we should take issue with "Point Transform Tool"?
    Illustrator is historically one of the worst about needlessly renaming its so often late-to-the-game constructs and features that existed long before in competing programs. Calling pages 'artboards' and nodes 'anchor points'. Its utterly needless and wordy 'Convert Anchor Point Tool'. Starting the whole now pandemic 'necessity' for two primary selection tools—the second of which is awkwardly named the 'Direct Selection Tool'—when FreeHand's elegant single selection tool performed all the functionality of both, more efficiently, intuitively, and capably. Adobe should hardly be considered the authoritative preferred 'dictionary' for best feature naming.
    So yes, I quite agree that words mean things. But functionality still trumps. The functionality of the Point Transform Tool addresses crucial omissions that stem from having only bounding box handles for common transformations: being able to rotate paths by their nodes, so as to intuitively snap them to paths and nodes already drawn. Before the Point Transform Tool, that was a serious failing relative to Illustrator. It's actually a bit of a new wrinkle and more elegant and accurate than the corresponding functionality in Illustrator.
    Pen Tool: Draw three arbitrarily-shaped open paths; one near the upper left corner of the page; one near the lower right; and one in the middle. Your goal is to scale and orient the middle path—without distorting its shape—to perfectly fit between two arbitrary nodes; one on the upper left path and one on the lower right path. Point Transform Tool: Select the middle path. Mousedown on one endNode of the middle path. Drag and snap it to the target node on the upper left path. Drag the Transform Center and snap it to that same node. Mousedown on the other endNode of the middle path. Drag and snap it to the target node on the lower right path. Done. Tell me how you would do that as quickly and intuitively in Illustrator with one tool. "…do we need a [term like] 'Point Transform Tool' that…makes little semantic sense to most people?"
    Yes! We need different terms for interface elements that are significantly different treatments of similar functionality in other programs, so that we know they're not just another re-packaged 'me, too' identical copycat treatment of same-old market-dominating (and progress stifling) programs like Illustrator.
    I cringe every time I see users in forums like this demand "We must have a [insert Illustrator's term] tool in Affinity!", as if Illustrator's cluttered, confused, scattered, and often mediocre treatment is the ultimate de facto thing to emulate. Affinity is opportunity to finally advance 2D bezier drawing beyond the mediocrity of Illustrator. But it won't get there by just thoughtlessly demanding identical treatment from such long-in-the-tooth programs without putting at least a little thought toward how it might be done better.
     
  15. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from lepr in Suggestion: Rebrand Point Transform Tool to 'Scale Tool' or similar   
    "…but not if you press shift"
    So?? It doesn't scale if you press Ctrl {Windows} either. But without pressing a modifier key it both scales and rotates in one move. So how would "scale" be a more appropriate name than "transform"?
    Look; I'm all for intuitive and consistent terminology. And I've been at this for a while, too. I cut my vector-drawing teeth in Altsys Fontographer—the progenitor of FreeHand, before Illustrator even existed—on a Mac Plus. But egads, man, there's no real issue in this instance. Dear departed Aunt Mollie would call this "straining at a gnat to swallow an elephant".
    For a real interface terminology issue, look no further than the current abuse of the "Pages" (or Artboards) and "Layers" terms. What is intuitive about starting a new document which displays a working area that certainly looks like a  page, drawing an ellipse on that 'non-page', and having the ellipse immediately listed in a Panel named "Layers" in which there are no Layers (or Pages)? Since when is a single ellipse a 'Layer'? This is supposed to be intuitive terminology convention? But we should take issue with "Point Transform Tool"?
    Illustrator is historically one of the worst about needlessly renaming its so often late-to-the-game constructs and features that existed long before in competing programs. Calling pages 'artboards' and nodes 'anchor points'. Its utterly needless and wordy 'Convert Anchor Point Tool'. Starting the whole now pandemic 'necessity' for two primary selection tools—the second of which is awkwardly named the 'Direct Selection Tool'—when FreeHand's elegant single selection tool performed all the functionality of both, more efficiently, intuitively, and capably. Adobe should hardly be considered the authoritative preferred 'dictionary' for best feature naming.
    So yes, I quite agree that words mean things. But functionality still trumps. The functionality of the Point Transform Tool addresses crucial omissions that stem from having only bounding box handles for common transformations: being able to rotate paths by their nodes, so as to intuitively snap them to paths and nodes already drawn. Before the Point Transform Tool, that was a serious failing relative to Illustrator. It's actually a bit of a new wrinkle and more elegant and accurate than the corresponding functionality in Illustrator.
    Pen Tool: Draw three arbitrarily-shaped open paths; one near the upper left corner of the page; one near the lower right; and one in the middle. Your goal is to scale and orient the middle path—without distorting its shape—to perfectly fit between two arbitrary nodes; one on the upper left path and one on the lower right path. Point Transform Tool: Select the middle path. Mousedown on one endNode of the middle path. Drag and snap it to the target node on the upper left path. Drag the Transform Center and snap it to that same node. Mousedown on the other endNode of the middle path. Drag and snap it to the target node on the lower right path. Done. Tell me how you would do that as quickly and intuitively in Illustrator with one tool. "…do we need a [term like] 'Point Transform Tool' that…makes little semantic sense to most people?"
    Yes! We need different terms for interface elements that are significantly different treatments of similar functionality in other programs, so that we know they're not just another re-packaged 'me, too' identical copycat treatment of same-old market-dominating (and progress stifling) programs like Illustrator.
    I cringe every time I see users in forums like this demand "We must have a [insert Illustrator's term] tool in Affinity!", as if Illustrator's cluttered, confused, scattered, and often mediocre treatment is the ultimate de facto thing to emulate. Affinity is opportunity to finally advance 2D bezier drawing beyond the mediocrity of Illustrator. But it won't get there by just thoughtlessly demanding identical treatment from such long-in-the-tooth programs without putting at least a little thought toward how it might be done better.
     
  16. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Aammppaa in Suggestion: Rebrand Point Transform Tool to 'Scale Tool' or similar   
    "…but not if you press shift"
    So?? It doesn't scale if you press Ctrl {Windows} either. But without pressing a modifier key it both scales and rotates in one move. So how would "scale" be a more appropriate name than "transform"?
    Look; I'm all for intuitive and consistent terminology. And I've been at this for a while, too. I cut my vector-drawing teeth in Altsys Fontographer—the progenitor of FreeHand, before Illustrator even existed—on a Mac Plus. But egads, man, there's no real issue in this instance. Dear departed Aunt Mollie would call this "straining at a gnat to swallow an elephant".
    For a real interface terminology issue, look no further than the current abuse of the "Pages" (or Artboards) and "Layers" terms. What is intuitive about starting a new document which displays a working area that certainly looks like a  page, drawing an ellipse on that 'non-page', and having the ellipse immediately listed in a Panel named "Layers" in which there are no Layers (or Pages)? Since when is a single ellipse a 'Layer'? This is supposed to be intuitive terminology convention? But we should take issue with "Point Transform Tool"?
    Illustrator is historically one of the worst about needlessly renaming its so often late-to-the-game constructs and features that existed long before in competing programs. Calling pages 'artboards' and nodes 'anchor points'. Its utterly needless and wordy 'Convert Anchor Point Tool'. Starting the whole now pandemic 'necessity' for two primary selection tools—the second of which is awkwardly named the 'Direct Selection Tool'—when FreeHand's elegant single selection tool performed all the functionality of both, more efficiently, intuitively, and capably. Adobe should hardly be considered the authoritative preferred 'dictionary' for best feature naming.
    So yes, I quite agree that words mean things. But functionality still trumps. The functionality of the Point Transform Tool addresses crucial omissions that stem from having only bounding box handles for common transformations: being able to rotate paths by their nodes, so as to intuitively snap them to paths and nodes already drawn. Before the Point Transform Tool, that was a serious failing relative to Illustrator. It's actually a bit of a new wrinkle and more elegant and accurate than the corresponding functionality in Illustrator.
    Pen Tool: Draw three arbitrarily-shaped open paths; one near the upper left corner of the page; one near the lower right; and one in the middle. Your goal is to scale and orient the middle path—without distorting its shape—to perfectly fit between two arbitrary nodes; one on the upper left path and one on the lower right path. Point Transform Tool: Select the middle path. Mousedown on one endNode of the middle path. Drag and snap it to the target node on the upper left path. Drag the Transform Center and snap it to that same node. Mousedown on the other endNode of the middle path. Drag and snap it to the target node on the lower right path. Done. Tell me how you would do that as quickly and intuitively in Illustrator with one tool. "…do we need a [term like] 'Point Transform Tool' that…makes little semantic sense to most people?"
    Yes! We need different terms for interface elements that are significantly different treatments of similar functionality in other programs, so that we know they're not just another re-packaged 'me, too' identical copycat treatment of same-old market-dominating (and progress stifling) programs like Illustrator.
    I cringe every time I see users in forums like this demand "We must have a [insert Illustrator's term] tool in Affinity!", as if Illustrator's cluttered, confused, scattered, and often mediocre treatment is the ultimate de facto thing to emulate. Affinity is opportunity to finally advance 2D bezier drawing beyond the mediocrity of Illustrator. But it won't get there by just thoughtlessly demanding identical treatment from such long-in-the-tooth programs without putting at least a little thought toward how it might be done better.
     
  17. Like
    JET_Affinity reacted to lepr in Suggestion: Rebrand Point Transform Tool to 'Scale Tool' or similar   
    Also translates (aka moves) objects.
    Translate, scale and rotate are transforms. The name of the tool seems appropriate.
  18. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Aammppaa in Suggestion: Rebrand Point Transform Tool to 'Scale Tool' or similar   
    Bit Arts,
    The Point Transform Tool is not "just a Scale Tool". It also rotates.
    The definitive difference between it and the bounding box handles is that it effectively lets you use any node of the selection as the 'transform handle' instead of a bounding box handle, which is often irrelevant to the drawing. The dragged node can be snapped to nodes or edges of other existing paths as it is transformed.
    So the "point" word, I suppose, is collective generic reference to Nodes and the Transform Center as 'points' meaningful to the drawing itself.
    It does not, however, obviate the function of bounding box handles, because it does not (so far as I can tell) provide for scaling disproportionally, which is also very important.
    That's why just having transform tools in the toolbox that act like Illustrator's (at least as of CS6; Adobe has not received a penny from me since its Captive Creative subscription) does not satisfy, either. That's why Illustrator also has bounding box transform handles.
    But even with Illustrator's transform tool and bounding box transform handles (again, as of CS6), one still cannot scale a selection disproportionally in an arbitrary direction other than perpendicular to a bounding box side or to the ever-tyrannical horizontal or vertical.
    That's why, as I suggest, if Affinity's utterly superfluous 'lollypop' bounding box handle were given the ability to rotate the bounding box independently from its content (by means of a momentary keyboard shortcut), the functionality would not just match Illustrator's functionality, but surpass it.
    JET
  19. Thanks
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Muhammed Taş in SCALE, ROTATE,   
    Loukash,
    You are misreading me. What you describe is not at all the same as scaling the selection only in the direction desired, like the scale handles on the sides of a bounding box do.
    1. Draw a square. Convert it to paths.
    2. Draw an arbitrary diagonal line across the square.
    3. Scale the square in the direction of the diagonal line only; in other words, without also changing its dimension in the direction perpendicular to the diagonal (disproportional scaling, like dragging a bounding box side handle does).
    JET
  20. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Westerwälder in Suggestion: Rebrand Point Transform Tool to 'Scale Tool' or similar   
    Bit Arts,
    The Point Transform Tool is not "just a Scale Tool". It also rotates.
    The definitive difference between it and the bounding box handles is that it effectively lets you use any node of the selection as the 'transform handle' instead of a bounding box handle, which is often irrelevant to the drawing. The dragged node can be snapped to nodes or edges of other existing paths as it is transformed.
    So the "point" word, I suppose, is collective generic reference to Nodes and the Transform Center as 'points' meaningful to the drawing itself.
    It does not, however, obviate the function of bounding box handles, because it does not (so far as I can tell) provide for scaling disproportionally, which is also very important.
    That's why just having transform tools in the toolbox that act like Illustrator's (at least as of CS6; Adobe has not received a penny from me since its Captive Creative subscription) does not satisfy, either. That's why Illustrator also has bounding box transform handles.
    But even with Illustrator's transform tool and bounding box transform handles (again, as of CS6), one still cannot scale a selection disproportionally in an arbitrary direction other than perpendicular to a bounding box side or to the ever-tyrannical horizontal or vertical.
    That's why, as I suggest, if Affinity's utterly superfluous 'lollypop' bounding box handle were given the ability to rotate the bounding box independently from its content (by means of a momentary keyboard shortcut), the functionality would not just match Illustrator's functionality, but surpass it.
    JET
  21. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from PaulEC in Suggestion: Rebrand Point Transform Tool to 'Scale Tool' or similar   
    Bit Arts,
    The Point Transform Tool is not "just a Scale Tool". It also rotates.
    The definitive difference between it and the bounding box handles is that it effectively lets you use any node of the selection as the 'transform handle' instead of a bounding box handle, which is often irrelevant to the drawing. The dragged node can be snapped to nodes or edges of other existing paths as it is transformed.
    So the "point" word, I suppose, is collective generic reference to Nodes and the Transform Center as 'points' meaningful to the drawing itself.
    It does not, however, obviate the function of bounding box handles, because it does not (so far as I can tell) provide for scaling disproportionally, which is also very important.
    That's why just having transform tools in the toolbox that act like Illustrator's (at least as of CS6; Adobe has not received a penny from me since its Captive Creative subscription) does not satisfy, either. That's why Illustrator also has bounding box transform handles.
    But even with Illustrator's transform tool and bounding box transform handles (again, as of CS6), one still cannot scale a selection disproportionally in an arbitrary direction other than perpendicular to a bounding box side or to the ever-tyrannical horizontal or vertical.
    That's why, as I suggest, if Affinity's utterly superfluous 'lollypop' bounding box handle were given the ability to rotate the bounding box independently from its content (by means of a momentary keyboard shortcut), the functionality would not just match Illustrator's functionality, but surpass it.
    JET
  22. Like
    JET_Affinity reacted to Bit Disappointed in SCALE, ROTATE,   
    What you're missing are of course Illustrator's scale, reflect, rotate tools (which you may have in muscle memory) and I must admit that Illustrator's scale tool for some types of scaling of whole objects is much, much faster to use. Both Illustrator and Blender have shortcuts for certain types of workflows where some operations are performed many, many times and where the graphic designer needs to not waste time.
    These workflows can take longer in Affinity, which is much more traditional in its user interface. 
    On the other hand, you may be able to use the Point Transform Tool (shortcut F).
  23. Thanks
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Ben in How To Reset The Bounding Box In Designer...   
    I've said this before in other threads, but it is pertinent to this thread, too. so...
    Every serious vector-based illustration program should provide for transforming selections disproportionally in any direction needed, not just horizontally and vertically.
    So first, it is a very good thing that Affinity bounding boxes 'remember' their contents' rotation. Since Affinity does not provide transform tools, but only provides transform handles on bounding boxes, that is the only way to perform on-page scaling in directions other than vertical and horizontal. Yes, I agree that one should be able to permanently re-set an object's to page-normal when desired, but a rotated bounding box is a very useful thing.
    Inkscape, for one example, insists on all bounding boxes always being page-normal. So when you need to scale a rotated  selection in the direction of its rotated orientation, you have to 'un-rotate' it so that the desired direction of scaling is either horizontal or vertical, perform the scaling, and then re-rotate it to its intended orientation. That's needlessly tedious.
    But Affinity's treatment is still senselessly limited. Consider an object that is rotated 35 degrees. Its rotated bounding box is 'remembered'. So you can disproportionately scale it in either the 35 degree or 125 degree directions. But by what logic is it assumed that the illustrator does not need to scale the rotated object in some other direction that is pertinent and meaningful to the illustration.
    Affinity bounding boxes provide an absurdly redundant FIVE rotation handles! One of them already has a different visual treatment: the 'lollypop' handle. Give that handle a practical and useful difference: Enable it to rotate the bounding box around the selection when a modifier key is pressed, thereby enabling the illustrator to 'aim' the transform handles in whatever direction needed, relative to the selection.
    JET
  24. Like
    JET_Affinity got a reaction from Leusing in How To Reset The Bounding Box In Designer...   
    I've said this before in other threads, but it is pertinent to this thread, too. so...
    Every serious vector-based illustration program should provide for transforming selections disproportionally in any direction needed, not just horizontally and vertically.
    So first, it is a very good thing that Affinity bounding boxes 'remember' their contents' rotation. Since Affinity does not provide transform tools, but only provides transform handles on bounding boxes, that is the only way to perform on-page scaling in directions other than vertical and horizontal. Yes, I agree that one should be able to permanently re-set an object's to page-normal when desired, but a rotated bounding box is a very useful thing.
    Inkscape, for one example, insists on all bounding boxes always being page-normal. So when you need to scale a rotated  selection in the direction of its rotated orientation, you have to 'un-rotate' it so that the desired direction of scaling is either horizontal or vertical, perform the scaling, and then re-rotate it to its intended orientation. That's needlessly tedious.
    But Affinity's treatment is still senselessly limited. Consider an object that is rotated 35 degrees. Its rotated bounding box is 'remembered'. So you can disproportionately scale it in either the 35 degree or 125 degree directions. But by what logic is it assumed that the illustrator does not need to scale the rotated object in some other direction that is pertinent and meaningful to the illustration.
    Affinity bounding boxes provide an absurdly redundant FIVE rotation handles! One of them already has a different visual treatment: the 'lollypop' handle. Give that handle a practical and useful difference: Enable it to rotate the bounding box around the selection when a modifier key is pressed, thereby enabling the illustrator to 'aim' the transform handles in whatever direction needed, relative to the selection.
    JET
  25. Like
    JET_Affinity reacted to Capitaine Pongo in Rotate/view   
    I often work on packaging. The View / rotate function is very annoying because all the tools have their coordinates rotate too. The arrows on the keyboard to move an object, the window sliders also reversed. Point alignment also works with rotation etc... it's like we're working with our head turned too 🐵 If you fix that, will be very helpfull.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.