[3d applications to use alongside AD]

Try Blender 3D. You can export SVG files from AD to Blender, extrude the SVG, add lighting, textures, etc.

You can even export an SVG from Blender.

[If a brush specifies "do not set Wet Edges" then turn Wet Edges off]

12 hours ago, carl123 said:

It would be extremely annoying if when you choose another Round Brush it sets Wet Edges OFF again as this is the (incorrectly) perceived "default" setting for Round Brushes.

As it is for me as I don't use Wet Edges with the basic brushes and every time I switch to a brush that uses it and I go back to the basic brush (or many other brushes from other categories) I have to switch the Wet Edge off. What is even worse, I can't obviously memorize this fastidious setting for all the brushes so for lots of brushes from other categories that don't use the Wet Edge I end up being extremely confused as I can't tell for sure what their original setting was. So, I have to select a basic brush because I know it doesn't use Wet Edge, switch to the other category I want use the brush from, and finally find out what its setting is. Unbelievable.

[If a brush specifies "do not set Wet Edges" then turn Wet Edges off]

Thank you, Walt

The way you say it makes sense. I should be able to change the topic and adjust my initial post.

[If a brush specifies "do not set Wet Edges" then turn Wet Edges off]

9 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Sorry, but what I described is exactly how it's working for you, from that video.

I think you chose the 64-point round brush from the Basic category. If you double-click on it  in the Brushes panel to bring up the brush editing window, you should see the following:

The "factory" setting for that brush is "Dont set wet edges", which is that 3rd setting I mentioned: Leave Wet Edges as it was when you selected the brush. It does not turn Wet Edges on, but neither does it turn it off. The brush is designed to leave the setting alone and work with whatever it finds.

It may not be a setting you like, but if you had a button to say "reset this brush to its default" that is exactly what you'd get.

Walt, don't you see how confusing this is?

The round brush doesn't use Wet Edges and so many other brushes. So, switching brush and going back to the round brush I would expect to be using the same exact settings that brush has been shipped with, that is no Wet Edges. Why do we need to complicate things?

[If a brush specifies "do not set Wet Edges" then turn Wet Edges off]

I know we had this conversation in the past and I understand for some of you the way it works makes sense, but it totally doesn't for me (and I'm sure, for others).
So, I'm formally requesting to accommodate for users like me who are used to other bitmap editing software were this extremely confusing behavior doesn't happen.

I don't want to have to tweak myriads of brush settings only to avoid something that can be done once and for all by adding a simple option.

The screen record below shows the issue and the fix is not by changing one of the three status option per-brush. A simpler way exists.

[If a brush specifies "do not set Wet Edges" then turn Wet Edges off]

Some brushes use the Wet Edges mode but changing to a brush that by default doesn't use that setting doesn't revert the Wet Edges to off. This is very confusing. I can't remember each brush setting and there's no way to know whether the setting were originally designed to have the Wet Edge on or off.

Interestingly among the default brush libraries this doesn't seem to happen only with the OIL brushes which switch Wet Edges on and off based on the factory settings.

 

Thanks @walt.farrell for the heads up on a better topic title.

[Selection from other layers also selects the layer]

Thank you @MEB and @Chris B for providing your feedback and confirming the issues.

I'm glad you were able to confirm the unexpected behavior and that this will be looked into.

Sorry for having insisted. I thought the behavior was odd and thus I was trying to get this noticed. I understand that it might take some time to get feedback and I'll keep that in mind for my future posts.

Thanks and stay safe.

[Selection from other layers also selects the layer]

4 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

I have had it take a week or two depending on their workload, and the number of reports already in the queue before I posted one.

(I will mention that I'm not sure you've properly classified this as a bug. I understand it's not working as you wish, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not working as they intend. But that's something Serif will have to comment on.)

Thank you for providing your feedback, Walt. I feel at least there's someone to have a conversation with here.

As for the workload if you check this section of the forum other threads are receiving contributions from moderators. So, their silence regarding my posts is a mystery to me.

As for whether the behavior can be considered a bug or not, you're right. It could be something be worth mentioning in the feedback section. That said, it would be logical for some moderator to chime in on this and move the thread to the proper section if they see fit.

But I guess we can agree on the fact that the current behavior has no reasonable purpose and it actually turns out to be counter-productive (unless you see some use of it).

The thing is, with the moderators neglecting my post here the there's no way we can push this forward towards a productive discussion.

Again, thanks for participating.

[Selection from other layers also selects the layer]

Alright,

I think it's official: the moderators only help some users, not everyone. Not sure why but it's quite disappointing.

 

[Selection from other layers also selects the layer]

Thanks for trying, @Ron P.

Here's a video (not sure it will play OK, it's an MKV — if not, I'll convert it to MP4)

As you can see in the video there are actually two issues occurring.

1. Selection from hidden layers is not possible. This is quite a disadvantage as the user is forced to un-hide all hidden layers to get their selections.
2. The issue I mentioned in this thread is shown towards the end of the clip. When I select the underneath layer transparency the layer itself is also selected in the layer stack, which is inconvenient. In fact, the reason why some layer's selection is needed is to use that on the current layer, mostly for masking reasons. So, with the current Affinity Photo behavior I have to also de-select the layer in the layer stack by clicking on the current layer again.

Hope that makes sense.

 

P.S. I have a screen cast key recorder in the video but there's some lag between the action and the on-screen information.

 

[Selection from other layers also selects the layer]

1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:

Several possibilities. Among them:

1. Perhaps no one in the user community knows the answer.
2. Perhaps no one may understand your question. A video and/or some screenshots are often helpful
3. As for a Serif response, it can take them awhile to get to bug reports, or questions, depending on how busy they are.

Thanks, Walt

I'm rather surprised as in this very section of the forum they're actually responding to other posts.

Maybe I'm not welcome anymore 🤨

[Selection from other layers also selects the layer]

Any reason why my posts are being ignored?

[Selection from other layers also selects the layer]

Can someone confirm?

[Selection from other layers also selects the layer]

When combining selections from across multiple layers by CTRL + left clicking on the layer we want to copy the selection from, the layer also gets selected.

If I want to use that selection to mask the active layer I then need to select the active layer only to de-select the other layer.

1.8.3.641

[Digital Asset Management]

3 hours ago, IanSG said:

I agree, but I can't criticise Serif for remaining silent - if they simply acknowledge they'll be hounded for more details, if they respond positively people will demand to know why it wasn't available yesterday, and if it's in the negative they'll be told they're missing the opportunity of a lifetime and they lack the business acumen to run a whelk stall!  

I see your point. Well, I guess that the Feature Requests & Suggestion is kinda useless then: we don't know if they did read what we posted, what they think, what are the chances of seeing our request full-filled, or whether there could be a reaction to it or not at all. In other words, I was right a long time ago when I decided to stop posting 🙄

Maybe it's time to go silent again.

[Digital Asset Management]

7 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

[...]

That does not mean that they will do everything that is frequently requested, nor that they will do things as fast as we might like nor in the order we might like. They have their own vision and priorities.

I wish they would at least respond.

[Affinity Photo. What to improve: a few suggestions]

I'm a registered user since 2016 and I know they do respond, they did in the past.

From my experience, most of the times they do it if it's a new user but I think taking care of older user it's as well important.

I still hope they'll respond here. The points I suggested are among some of the most requested. I discussed Affinity on other forums, blogs, and among the difficulties, short comes, and issues often raised by other users, these are by far the most common ones. It would be a mistake to ignore them.

[Affinity Photo. What to improve: a few suggestions]

No answer from the developers. Any particular reason for that?

[Affinity Photo. What to improve: a few suggestions]

Still hoping to see some of the following addressed soon.

The gradient tool

The use of the gradient tool is quite convoluted at the moment.

1. It never picks the default fill colors.
2. It would be better if the user could freely move both sides of the gradient tool, whereas right now one side is always locked as a pivot. It makes the placement of the gradient tool more complicated than it needs to be.
3. It always resets to its default status. It would be very handy if it could just start from the last settings used (I use the Radial type a lot).

Other quirks

1. Selections: having to use the buttons to add, subtract, intersect slows down the workflow quite a lot. There’s really no chance to use the shortcuts here?
2. When soloing a layer there’s no way to keep the layer soloed and preview its mask’s content at the same time.
3. Boolean operations for selections among multiple layers it’s still not possible.
4. It’s not possible to create a selection from an hidden layer.

These are all aspects that can speed up the work tremendously, especially for people who do use the keyboard a lot.
Hope to see some reaction to this post.

 

 

[Lightroom alternative]

On 11/14/2016 at 2:22 PM, garters said:

Any plans to design a lightroom alternative? I own Affinity Photo and an old version of Lightroom. For general photo touchups I would use LR far more than AP. Not because AP (or Photoshop) is not good enough, but because LR is quicker and easier for most things. Aperture is gone and now the only viable alternative is going to be the new MacPhun one.

Check Darktable. It's one of the most powerful RAW editor, it's free, and to some it resembles LR a little.
Also, the development is quite active and if you want to try new features there are nightly builds.

[Brush settings not restored to default values]

8 hours ago, R C-R said:

If you do not want the wet edge setting of a brush to be affected by the wet edge setting of another brush, set the first brush's wet edge setting to either on or off, whichever one you think is most appropriate for that particular brush. The app provides this customization on a per brush basis. But please keep in mind that not everyone will want every brush to turn edge wetness on or off -- IOW, to change the current edge wetness state -- which is why there is a "Don't set wet edges" choice.

You're late, we figured this out long ago in this thread. Again, you're missing the point either voluntarily or simply because you're not getting it. Not sure which is worse.

 

Quote

That is what I meant about it not being a "one size fits all" rule -- it is whatever any particular user wants it to be, whether that is consistent for all brushes, some brushes, or no brushes. There are defaults for each brush, but every user can change them to whatever they want, thus making them as consistent or as inconsistent across all brushes as they please.

Please, explain this to @Old Bruce who thought you said it is not a rule.

[Brush settings not restored to default values]

5 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

[...]

Water Color brushes need wet edges, because that's how water color works in the real world. Some other kinds don't, because their real world behavior does not act like wet edges in water color. If there were one rule (either on, or off, for all brushes) then artists would complain that the brushes weren't realistic.

So the brushes need to work differently, and have different defaults, to behave realistically.

And some brushes, such as those that are in Basic, which are not modeled on real world brushes or specific media, simply don't change the wet edges setting that the user (or the last brush) has provided.

Of course some brushes need the wet edges.

It would be so darn simple: for brushes that need wet edges let's have it on by default. Just do not let these brushes affect other brushes that don't need wet edges unless the user want to. That's where customization steps in. Is that so complicated to understand as far as consistency goes?

Instead, no, it got messed up. The software decides for you, randomly, which brushes are affected and which not. It's basically breaking the ABC of good design.

 

[Brush settings not restored to default values]

6 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Please note the word not in R C-R's statement. He is saying it is not a rule.

 

I'm starting having serious doubts about my understanding of English.

He said: That is the rule and he also said it is not a one size fits all rule.

So, he's only saying that may not be fine for everyone but that is still a rule.

So, what makes you infer he's stating that it is not a rule?

[Brush settings not restored to default values]

27 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Of course it is a setting to me, just like hardness, opacity, & everything else on the context toolbar. But that does not make it the same thing as in the brush selection like Walt showed or what you get when you open a brush's properties from the Brushes panel.

That is the rule, & it is completely under your control. You can make it as consistent or as inconsistent as you want, just like any other user can.

It is not a 'one size fits all' rule, & I am fine with that.

Oh man, no offense, but you can't really see further distance than your nose.

"That is the rule" what that even mean? Because it's a rule it's good or it cannot be changed? This is not Moses tablets.

"You make it as consistent or as inconsistent" It's already inconsistent. I have zero choice in how the program has been designed. It starts like that. The way brushes behave when it comes to using previous wet edges status is already random. The fact that I can customize it doesn't make it less consistent.

In order to be consistent all brushes should behave the same way. Isn't that the meaning of consistency?

Randomness is the opposite. Worse, randomness without any explanation of why. Why some do a certain thing and why some don't.

I get it, it works for you. For a lucky coincidence you're fine with the way they work now. Also, considered none of the developers expressed any opinion on this, this whole messed-up brushes behavior could just be an overlooked design choice. Or not, who knows? Well, they said GPU wasn't a thing...

[Brush settings not restored to default values]

@R C-R

I even asked what do you call this

It is clear that that's not a setting to you. What do you call it then?

I'm not a native speaker but I don't think I'm speaking gibberish either.

And let me reiterate: there's no rule on how a brush react to the wet edges. Some carry over the wet edges from other brushes, some don't. That's inconsistent.

From a user experience there's no logic in that and can only lead to confusion.