Gear maker

Maybe this will help.  In the menu View>View Mode>Clip to Canvas with a hotkey of a \ backslash.  It works for me in cases where I need to store something off the canvas.  And I can make it invisible until I need it.

Nudge settings in tool bar would be a great thing for me.
 
I change the nudge distance settings a lot and having to do this in preferences over and over again is tedious.

Hi bobstro,
 
and welcome here …  :)
 
No wonder that you are experiencing this kind of drift. As you probably saw, you cannot enter rotation values numerically with respect to a shape that has a custom rotation centre. And the value display provided next to the on-canvas rotation handle is too coarse to inform you correctly about the actual rotation values. In order to use create precise rotations around a centre, you will have to use a workaround:
Create a duplicate of your stroke mirrored at the midpoint of your clock face. Group both strokes, duplicate the group, set the rotation midpoint to “Centre” on the Transform Panel, and enter the intended rotation degree.  Power duplicate. By doing so, you won’t get the drift you experienced by creating your rotation manually. Other than that, I would also suggest to follow Dale’s method.
 
Hope that helps …  :)
Alex

Clayton, those are some interesting ideas. I don't think disabling Save is viable, because in order to fully test the program you need to use it as you would normally, and that includes working on big projects over many days, stopping them and coming back to them etc, which needs Save. Changing the file extension might be feasible, though.
 
One point I don't think Matt mentioned is that files saved by 1.5 beta will not load into 1.4.x. This means that if you did use the beta, saved over your original file, then hit a serious bug, you wouldn't be able to just go back to the production app and continue. You'd be stuffed until we could release a fix.
 
It's those two things - the amount of effort our testers put into test projects, and the possibility of that effort being lost - that makes us wary of releasing 1.5 beta prematurely. I do think we've got ourselves into a bad place with the current schedule. I find it frustrating that work I did to fix bugs back in February still hasn't seen the light of day. Previously we've been able to have a new beta just a few weeks after the Mac App Store was updated, and as a result it had relatively few changes and was relatively trust-worthy, and then we could continue keeping it up to date frequently so it never got too bad. This time, however, It is taking us ages to get 1.4.x final, and in that period 1.5 has progressed so much that we can't be sure it is better than 1.4.2. I am hoping that this is temporary, and that once the 1.5 beta is released we can revert to a more frequent cadence.

I would like to add both some pros and cons to the current feel of the development direction.
 
Pros:
 
Great responsive apps (both Designer and Photo) running on either OS X Yosemite or OS X El Capitan. Great interactive tools (e.g. gradient, transparency, blend mode live view). Very fun to work in the apps due to said responsiveness in the OS. Great for home projects.
 
Cons:
 
Starting to feel a little like the Pixelmator development (but far from becoming a product that is a disappointment - at least to me). Since I use Adobe products professionally at work (on a Windows based infrastructure) and have been for over 10 years, I can't say I feel comfortable with Affinity apps when I think of completing a project from start to finish at this point in time. Perhaps once the tool sets are complete, I may be confident.
 
The expand stroke issue as well as the lack of path offset are basic prerequisites for my work. The lack of a mesh tool (which has been on the roadmap since I started using Designer and has yet to be seen or mentioned outside of the roadmap) also has me wondering when that will ever show up.
 
These are a couple of basic reasons I can't remove other design apps from my home machine (which I would like to do since I prefer simple and efficient). I have the seat license from work for Adobe CC, so I do keep that installed and continue to fall back on it for any serious work at home, even though the newest CC desktop client feels very intrusive on my iMac as far as responsiveness goes. In fact; Photoshop CC 2015, Illustrator CC 2015 and Lightroom CC all feel like they are running in a browser instead of locally off the hard drive.
 
I really am looking forward to Affinity improvements (read additional tools, options and fixes like the expand stroke's - IMHO - unreasonable amount of nodes created for a program that is meant to make work easier). I would very much like to see one of these MAS companies move past the 'app of the year' stage and into the 'just continues to amaze' part!!  :P
 
Note - please don't take this as anything other than an honest perspective from one user who hopes for the day when one set of tools that perform efficiently without bloat will do just fine. I still believe Serif's Affinity products can make that come true. The main reason I am even posting this comment is that there was an indication that a stable MAS version would be presented first and then beta's would resume. I now see that has changed.  :unsure:
 
Best regards,
CorkyO

Honestly, I believe Matt’s points are very reasonable. Would it really make sense to create a document in a beta version that relies on “state-of-the-art” feature implementations which are not supported by subsequent versions, due to fundamental code changes? In other words, can you imagine a possible use case for a document you would never be able to open again, once the beta you used to create this document has expired? I fear I cannot …  :unsure:
 
On the other hand, I would also believe that it might make sense to push smaller fixes and improvements faster to the users, if possible. But it is, admittedly, very hard to assess from a user’s perspective, what should be considered a “small” fix or improvement, since such a seemingly small change might have numerous consequences in the code base.
 
Anyway, thanks for your hard work …  :)
Alex

I think that it looks like 1.5 is going to be epic as far as features is concerned, but what would most be appreciated I think, is if you would just do a little more house cleaning? MBd mentioned many things but I do tend to agree that having a stable fixed MAS versions with small but significant fixes would be more beneficial in the short term. Example: expanded strokes fix-would be a HUGE deal. Same goes for other tools. We as users will eventually get tired of repeating the same issue and shall say well you know you can comment all you want on a certain bug but we can't influence them enough to make a difference. I don't want Serif to be that company. Look at Pixelmator, had a chance to be the PS incumbent but they're still worthless to professionals because they are on they're own schedule, no vision in that company.  But on the contrary and in the long term, having the new features that are coming, for me, is like saying that day is going to be like Christmas morning, and we all can/have to wait for that.

No, it is not that difficult …  :)
 
Basically, you can think of rasterising as a process of taking information from a certain source and transform it into pixel information. The outcome of a rasterising process will always be a pixel layer. And the basic parameters for calculating the pixel information are taken from your document and the respective source. There are at least four main areas of applying the rasterising process:
Placed objects Vector objects Layers with modifiers like masks, effects, (live) filters, or (live) adjustments Pixel layers Let me quickly describe these applications one after another:
Whenever you place an object in a document, it will show up as an image object there. The placed object will retain most of its properties, such as the native resolution, while some of its properties get changed, such as the colour profile. Rasterising an image object will turn this object into a pixel layer, thereby stripping the original properties from the object and rendering it at its current size into the document.​ Whenever you rasterise a vector object, such as a curve or a dynamic shape, the vector object will be rendered into your document as a pixel layer. Since the vector information will be transformed into pixel information, you will loose the editability that is typical for vector objects, but you will gain all the editing options that are typical for pixel objects. For example, you can make pixel selections now or use the eraser on your new layer. Now suppose you nested modifiers like masks, effects, (live) filters or (live) adjustments to a layer of any type. Then these modifiers will appear as children of your layer in the layers list. When you rasterise the layer, the information that is contributed to the layer by the modifiers will be merged with the information provided by the layer itself, and the outcome will be once again a pixel layer. Rasterising a layer with a lot of modifiers applied will free system resources, since these effects don’t have to be calculated anymore. But you will loose the option of editing the parameters of the applied modifiers. Finally, suppose you have a pixel layer that overlaps the document boundaries. By rasterising the pixel layer, you will in effect trim that layer down to the document size. The overlapping areas will be lost. Furthermore you must be aware that some other processes require the rasterising of layers beforehand, like the application of certain effects. Hope these explanations make sense, and help to clarify the issues a bit.
 
Cheers, Alex  :)

Bond, I am totally in agreement with you.  I want to be able to hit the V and know it's in Move, I don't want to have to keep looking to the tool list to see if it's in Move.  Likewise for all the other tool shortcuts.  I'd like to see this as an option that can be turned off.  The one that bites be the most is probably the corner tool and the node tool, I can't tell by looking at the screen which tool is active.
 
FYI https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/3783-ambiguous-tool-shortcut-keys/?hl=move&p=17178

Well, it is not an effect, but a basic requirement of vector information display.
Basically, the vector information of your drawing must be rasterised, if it is to be displayed on an output device like a screen or a printer. That means, it has to be represented by the elements of a raster grid. Call them pixels. Now imagine you have a path that runs diagonally through the raster grid. Then the algorithm has to decide which pixels have to be turned black on rasterisation. For example, the algorithm could turn black every pixel which is “touched” or “crossed” by the path. But that would result in a very jagged image. So the algorithm is programmed to use a more refined method for assigning colour values to pixels on the basis of the given vector information, and that results in what you are seeing. Have a look at my rough sketch below.
By using the Coverage Map button MEB was talking about, you are in fact adjusting the way the algorithm interprets your vector information during the rasterisation process for your object.
Hope that makes sense … 
Alex

If I am working on a drawing (the top image in the attached) and I save and exit AD.  I then start a new session so I reopen AD and the same drawing.  As shown in the middle image the drawing comes up in a small window, in this case with an 8.9% zoom.
 
But if AD happens to crash and then the recovery file is opened, the drawing comes back to fill the screen as I had had it and it zooms into the drawing as I had had it.  Just like when I left.
 
Could you please add a button that will crash AD at the end of our session, so that it will reopen where we were each time we start a new session.  
 
This should be fairly easy and it will add a feature many of us have desired for a long time, being able to easily start a new session exactly where we left off.
 

Expand stroke and some of boolean functions (divide) is still generating unwanted complexity and in some cases extra "pieces" see attached images.  For the type of complicated slice and dice workflow I have, this is very problematic and a show stopper for all but the simplest forms. LOVING the effects and shading workflow, path editing is still not where it should be and my hope is that some of these vector basics will be dealt with and rise to the same level soon. :-)

No problem. Just make your imagery line up when creating your brush.  B)  
(low res example here)
 
Edit: The real problem is.... what happens in sharp corners?! Pull fold etc doesn't always cut it. We need that image option.

As it is, the Transform palette with its X and Y position information is somewhat useless unless you feel like creating a bunch of guides and calculating differences between objects and using trial and error. It would be so much more helpful if this panel showed the delta X / delta Y values when you are moving a shape to a new position.
 
And as was first mentioned two years ago, it would be nice to have Sketch / Fireworks distance pop-ups when holding ALT. I'd consider these basic features much higher priority than what's on the current roadmap.

Just to be clear about it, there is no "stroke key" as such. All vector shapes have an outline that may be "stroked" with a color other than their fill color. The stroke width can be set to none, making it invisible, or to various widths, & to align with the outline's center or inner or outer edge to get different effects.
 
The stroke & the fill are not two different shapes merged together, just different properties of one shape.

Curious as to why there isn't a "Decimal Place for Unit Type" preference for the rotate and shear transform degrees? Currently, they each display one decimal value — but would be great if we could round the degree values to whole numbers, like the other unit types allow.
 
Any future plans for this?

JackofDiamonds, when I have an object that I figure would be easier to control with the rotation permanently reset to zero, I find the easiest way is to draw a rectangle bigger than the shape and totally overlaps it.  Then use the Intersect Operation.  The resulting shape will be zeroed out.  The color will be the same as whichever layer is on the bottom.  Multi shape objects need each shape to be done separately.

JackofDiamonds, when I have an object that I figure would be easier to control with the rotation permanently reset to zero, I find the easiest way is to draw a rectangle bigger than the shape and totally overlaps it.  Then use the Intersect Operation.  The resulting shape will be zeroed out.  The color will be the same as whichever layer is on the bottom.  Multi shape objects need each shape to be done separately.

WOW, yesterday I had to go back to PS6 to update a project.  I couldn't believe how difficult it was to take care of several of the tasks.  15 months ago when I started with AD the main question I seemed to ask was "Why in the world did the Affinity devs do it this way?"  Now going back to PS I find that the way that AD did it makes more sense and usually is easier.
 
When I started I was looking for a substitute for AI but with no monthly bill.  I had expected AD to be a knockoff of AI.  I admit I was somewhat disappointed when it wasn't.  But I found that most of the actions made enough sense that though they were different they were mostly pretty easy to pick up.  Now going back to Adobe, only when I absolutely have too, I find in most cases the Affinity process (muscle memory aside) really is more natural, logical, intuitive, etc.
 
I know in the past half year I find myself rarely questioning why does AD does it this way, so I should not have been surprised.  But Adobe's methodology was even so much more cumbersome than I remembered.
 
I know there are other people on the forum that disagree with this, but I suspect there are not many that have given Affinity a fair try for more than a few months that aren't appreciating the difference between Affinity and Adobe.
 
Thank you Affinity team for all the planning and work you have done.  Job well done.  Now if we could get some lingering bugs taken care of, like Expand Stroke...  <_<
 
Mike

Leigh, this is excellent info for us "details" people.  Thank you.

Looks great, Peter.  Did you see that a company in Texas is going to start building these again?  Out of all the excess parts in storage from when they were produced before.  I think they said they had enough to be able to build 300 units.

Last year I had a need to be able to put a semi-random "noise" in an AD drawing.  The noise option in AD didn't give me quite the control I needed.  I wanted to be able to control the color of the noise.  So I created a font that I could use to type gibberish, set the color (even the background), scale, rotate, overlap, transparency, etc.
 
The one big drawback to this is that when I zoom in the dots become obvious, not like the noise offered by AD.
 
Just in case you have such a need attached is the font.  Okay the forum won't let me load a .ttf file so I have zipped it.
 
FYI I recommend you don't convert to curves these text layers.  It tends to makes the file humongous instantly.  No advantage to doing so anyway.  <_<
 

 
Texture1.ttf.zip

Last year I had a need to be able to put a semi-random "noise" in an AD drawing.  The noise option in AD didn't give me quite the control I needed.  I wanted to be able to control the color of the noise.  So I created a font that I could use to type gibberish, set the color (even the background), scale, rotate, overlap, transparency, etc.
 
The one big drawback to this is that when I zoom in the dots become obvious, not like the noise offered by AD.
 
Just in case you have such a need attached is the font.  Okay the forum won't let me load a .ttf file so I have zipped it.
 
FYI I recommend you don't convert to curves these text layers.  It tends to makes the file humongous instantly.  No advantage to doing so anyway.  <_<
 

 
Texture1.ttf.zip

Feature request to enable nodes to be equally distributed along a path, using the align space tool.

Clicking elsewhere to finish editing without creating a new text field would be a good addition.
 
But Cmd+Return is definitely system wide to finish something. (Even sending a text instead of a new line in messaging apps) This is not just an Adobe thing. Look at Keynote. Edit a text field and hit Cmd+Return. Editing is finished.
 
It's even kookier because Cmd+Return does finish editing. It just also converts to curves which you don't notice until you come back and try and edit that text.
 
The ability to convert to curves seems like a useful feature. But so infrequently used. Why not Cmd+Return to finish editing and Cmd+Shift+Return for finish editing and convert to curves?
 
I routinely need to make adjustments to kerning and other paragraph settings immediately after typing out the text. Given the lack of a clear way to finish editing, it's very cumbersome to do that with the text tool currently. Esc is not always clear that I've jumped out of edit mode. Especially if I hit Cmd+A to select all and make changes to character or paragraph.
 
The principal of least surprise would be nice here.