abra100pro
-
Posts
430 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by abra100pro
-
-
-
You may want to check this thread (hopefully there are not dozens of, though):
-
I came to Affinity because of two reasons:
- It is way more efficient and optimized as bad old Illustrator and InDesign. It is lightning fast and easy to use. It has an intuitive UI
- I can buy and keep it.
@walt.farrell I gladly will buy a version 3 and 4 and... but in my first post I was pointing to a likely future where there will not be a version 3 to buy. Or Affinity being degraded into something Canva-Local-App to support Canva's online subscription services. The way this FAQ is being answered (see my first post above) is so greasy – if Affinity would have made sure, that the model stays the same, they would have posted it proudly and clearly. The fact that they didn't.... well...
@garrettm30 This posts makes me sad. Affinity claiming they're not for sale (no matter when that was) and now being sold. While we live in a world of utter maximisation, there is alway the hope of this Robin Hood, out there, that wins because we all win.
-
I just read this statement in the FAQ of the news:There are no changes to our current pricing model planned at this time, with all our apps still available as a one-off purchase. Existing Affinity users will be able to continue to use your apps in perpetuity as they were originally purchased – with plenty of free updates to V2 still to look forward to!My impression of this: Marketing language for saying something while meaning something else. It oozes with what sounds like an excuse for the future to come.I always considered Serif being a worthy, feet-on-the ground company that is not riding the horse named "Maximize". I hope I see the company still that way in the future.
-
6 hours ago, Patrick Connor said:
I ALSO feel the artboard tool should always default to creating pixel aligned and whole pixel widths and overriding would require a conscious choice.
what about moving existing artboards? and what about working with a ruler set to a different measure like milimetres? Moving artboards around to make space for variations od designs is a huge thing.
what is wrong/missing with
- single artboards having no relation to the main canvas they‘re lying on?
- in any way combined artboards having a total x,y-starting point of 0,0 considering export?
-
2 minutes ago, MEB said:
@abra100pro,
I was editing/completing my reply while you replied. The above replies were in reference to documents and work that require pixels/points as units (for web, interfaces and icon design mostly). Other types of documents/units may have other default attributes and not force pixel alignment because it doesn't make sense there.
Regarding artboards as objects and thus their position on canvas implications: it allows you certain manipulations that were not possible if they were treated as independent canvas, namely you can power duplicate them, convert them to objects and vice-versa, display/arrange them in relation to each other the wy is more convenient for you etc.Thanks, I think (and I'm glad) the thing will get some attention and will be thought thoroughly by Serif.
-
2 minutes ago, MEB said:
Ideally the artboards should always be pixel aligned to start with (as well as the objects if the work at end requires it) thus the currently "finicky setup". We do have ways to help here with snapping but it should indeed align them by default.
Doesn't this lead to problems like the ones I mentioned one post above? artboards being aligned to pixels by default. But what about when I design in milimetres? What is the benefit of considering the position on the canvas, at all?
-
8 minutes ago, fde101 said:
So... if you have an artboard with a position which is not pixel aligned to the canvas, but it contains objects which *are* pixel aligned to the canvas, then those objects are not pixel-aligned to the artboard.
This would result in modified dimensions when exporting using the Export persona (but not the potentially unwanted aliasing), but aliasing when exporting via File->Export (due to the objects having non-aligned positions with respect to the artboard) though the dimensions would be correct.
While logically this makes perfect sense, it is ultimately a lose-lose situation for what I would assume to be the majority of users.
Agreed.
But please check, what impact this has when designing in other measures, such as milimetres.
Actually not sure whether this is a good idea. I imagine designers drawing up an artboard of the size they want in the measure they want. This should be the base of everything, no matter where or in which measure this happens. I still wonder in what situation I would want to use an artboard as an object 🤔. There is the ability of selecting any number of objects and exporting them by "Selection only" which would in my understanding lead to a X,Y of 0,0 on the top left of this selection which would always lead to the wanted and forseeable result, no?
-
Thanks a ton! You might loose a word to the devs about the other issues I mentioned above in the bullet list... but, really, thank you all.
-
Module Preview Thumbs.afdesign This is the file in question – but I do have this with every file ever since I use AD.
Oh, I have manually positioned each artboard in the meantime for the sake of work being done. Just move them around with snapping of and you're back in my daily grind.
-
I'm not sure whether my english is good enough to follow each aspect of the conversation, so please forgive me, when I'm not getting it right.
(While we're at it) The Artboards have some weird sides that IMHO do not favour the user:
- Their position on the canvas being relevant for their export size
- Their background colour behaviour (transparent, white, colour) hast some unforseeable results @export
- I can assign them a bleed and a background colour but when exporting, the background colour is not filling the bleed
So my conclusion would be to rethink what artboards should really be. And I bet a good bottle of an old Scotch that most of us would like to use them as independent "document" within the main document (sorry, lack of better words).
And back to the main topic, here: The consideration of position of them only makes sense when considering the relation of them to eachother on the canvas.
I am juggling with them in my multi-artboard-files, here another icon artboard, there another banner-size-artboard. And each time I have to take helluva care of their position. This drives me nuts. And again I thing that much more people work that way than with artboards relating to eachother, no?
In the export persona the problem is the same as when exporting directly in the designer persona.
PS: Glad that we are talking about this seriously, attending and with real interest – I appreciate that a lot.
-
I have to try it again:
I'm often in the situation where I need to design many graphics, be it banners or icons or other stuff. I can't understand why the exact positioning of the artboards on my canvas are essential for the dimensions of the exported artboards. This makes no sense in a way that makes me sing "om" in order to keep calm.
Please look at this:
All artboards are 100x100px, When exported, no matter what format, some of them are 100x101, some 100x100, some 101x100 – arghh!
There are some weird workarounds like setting the pixel decimals to .xxxxxx and setting the right set of snapping (which then is completely unhandy for any other snapping in the process).
I beg you, Serif, please consider changing this. There is not one setup in which this behaviour makes sense. Am I really the only one?
-
OMG; this is not my day of reporting! Sorry, just got a flash to try out CMD+Shift+0 and this works just the way I need it.
Sorry – maybe someone else can benefit from my "insight"...
- Alfred, walt.farrell and Old Bruce
-
3
-
1 minute ago, walt.farrell said:
You already can do that, since V1. https://affinity.help/designer2/en-US.lproj/pages/Workspace/expressions.html
Is there some specific field you're having trouble with, and can you provide a screenshot or recording of the issue?
Ups, sorry, my bad, I messed something up. You're right, Walt.
-
If I import an image that is much larger than my artboard it would be great to CMD+0 to see the bounding rectangle of the image (i.e. zoom out), so that I can easily transform it to whatever I want. So I guess my feature request would be: Please consider elements that are lager than the artboard(s) when pressing CMD+0, like so:
-
It would be great if I could change the width/height/size/... by calculations, such as:
width: 300*1.5 and enter ends in width: 450
I use it a lot in Photoshop. It's supercool.
-
@loukash interesting approach – I can see the idea behind it.
-
Hi
I have a circle with a simple pressure on its stroke. The result has some unwanted irregularities in it.
-
58 minutes ago, Dan C said:
I'd like to ask for some clarification here, as I think I'm missing something from the recording - I can see in the first half you have a singular Artboard, which when exported to PNG (through the Export Persona) includes the transparency around the Rectangle.
You then duplicate the Artboard and return to the Export Persona, but I don't see any further exports created after this point, simply enabling/disabling the Slices in the Export Persona - which all seems to work as expected, from what I can see.
Can you please expand on the exact behaviour you're referring to, and the improvements you're hoping to see in this regard?
Sorry, I try :-):
Main topic is a lack of visual representation of the transparency state of artboards and a confusion of artboards vs. document setting transparency:
From these artboards, the left and right are transparent, Document settings is set to not Transparent backgrounds (default):
I would like to see a checkerboard on the left and right artboard. I know, the document setting! But, what if this very setting would be disabled when you have arboards? leaving transparency solely to them individually?When I export them to PNG (for instance) I get this view in the export persona:
Why not showing here the matte colour and the transparency on the slices themselves? Or, if the problem is several differnet possible exportformats – then at least, what's transparent and what not.
And while I'm at it: It would be gorgeous, if there is bleed in a document and an artboard has a background colour defined, that very colour would fill the bleed at export:
Second topic:
Enabling/disabling many artboards/slices @ export: Please forget about that, I found out, that one can cmd-select several and then mark/unmark them for export – my bad.
-
Please check movie – some thought on transparency of artboards and/at export
Video is made in the newest Beta (but is valid also for the official version). -
Thanks a ton for the tricks. I'm gonna use them until maybe we see something like this, again: proper zoom-button where there is a ton of real estate for it and I must say, I loved the icons – my brain is finding the format I'm looking for in miliseconds compared to "aehmm... hm.. ah, here!"
In lack of time I didn't resize the icons proportionally, forgive me. 🙂
-
Hi
The old Export was much user friendlier. Also the preview is of no use – it cannot even be zoomed in/out.
I wish that the dry list of files would be at least be ordered alphabetically:
I can recognize a shy puprose in this order, now, but in daily use it would be easier from a-z.
And, if I could wish: the old one was really much easier.
-
3 minutes ago, loukash said:
Jaja, so ist es
In other words: To qualify as a bug, an issue should be reproducible by some means. Otherwise the developers won't know what to look for.of course – however, maybe the devs find something in my file that explains them what was going wrong. However, I'll see what I can do.
I found out, that the gradient with the problem hadn't become a rectangle like the ones that work:
-
1 minute ago, loukash said:
So to figure out if this is a bug, you may want to try to reproduce those exact steps with a new document to see if it happens again.
well, "exact steps" sounds like a challenge 🙂 I'm gonna try some things.
Affinity and Canva (hopefully not a bug related topic)
in Feedback for the Affinity V2 Suite of Products
Posted
Having received the email today from Canva I must admit, that the Canva guys do have a better feeling for communication than the Serifs. If Ash would have initially communicated that way (and if it's true!), then we would not have to have felt being left in the rain.
So if Canva is serious about their pledges there may be hope. This is a marvellous example of the importance of communication.