Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About debraspicher

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Houston, TX
  • Member Title
    I see dead pixels

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. For another method to uninstall the MSIX version... Press Win + S to pull up search and type in photo... then click the "arrow" to expand options next to the "Affinity Photo 2" option... The MSIX version will have an option that says "App Settings". There is an uninstall option below it.
  2. You can also find the MSI installer in the account page (it's towards the bottom ) where your downloads are. This is a different installer and does not install the same as the other "default" (MSIX) (i.e. unsandboxed). I really recommend to uninstall the current version because telling apart the MSIX vs MSI version can be challenging depending on how you typically open your programs. So you may accidentally open up the old one without realizing. To make it easier, maybe just uninstall one of them and run the new MSI installer for the one you uninstalled. Then open to test. I'll even screen grab so you can see where to find it on the page: Please let us know if that alleviates the issue. Also, I'm sorry you are having this issue. Tech can be frustrating.
  3. @Nomad Raccoon Yes, I feel more confident in the MSI version. I did start a thread in the bug section related to the sanded vs unsanded performance differences if anyone else wanted to test for a bottleneck on their machine. Many of us are using AMD CPUs, so I'm not sure if that's also a factor. Hopefully it'll assist developers to narrow down a cause. We have the solution already though which is simply to use MSI.
  4. This was discussed in another related thread and tested by a number of users using the “unzip to desktop” unofficial install method for the MSIX package in order to negate sandbox. It was learned that there is a significant performance increase when using the same package un-sandboxed versus sandboxed. (i.e. sandboxed == slower) It seems to impact higher end hardware more, but it isn’t clear for sure without more machines being tested. I tested an AMD card in the other thread and it showed a hit, but that card is not that powerful compared to the others. (Feel free to add your own tests below with higher end AMD cards) These tests are using the official MSIX installation vs MSI installations. 230127_2.0.4.1701_Sanded-vs-Unsanded-Benchmarks_ALL-MACHINES.zip I tested with 3 machines using 3x benchmarks for averaging each installation method: Machine 1 (Main): Microsoft Windows 10 Home (Build 19045) AMD Ryzen 7 5800X @ 3.8Ghz (-30 all core +200mhz PBO); Mobo: Asus X470 Prime Pro 32GB DDR4 (3600Mhz) EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 3080 X3C Ultra 12GB Monitor 1&2 4K @ 150% Perf Variance: 16 ~ 20% Sanded: Unsanded: Machine 2 (Hub’s): Microsoft Windows 10 Home (Build 19044) AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 6 core @ 3.7Ghz Asus ROG Strix B450-F Gaming 16GB DDR4 (3200Mhz) Gigabyte RTX 3070 Gaming OC 8GB Rev 2.0 Monitor 1 1440p @ 225% Perf Variance: 15 ~ 21% Sanded: Unsanded: Machine 3 (Living Room): Microsoft Windows 10 Home (Build 19045) AMD Ryzen 7 3600 6-core @ 3.8Ghz (-30 all core +200mhz PBO) ASRock A520M-HDV 32GB DDR4 (3000Mhz) Asus TUF GTX 1660 TI Monitor 1 4K @ 225% Perf Variance: 12 ~ 14% Sanded: Unsanded:
  5. Attached Test File & Exported PNG 230127_coverage-map-linear-inaccurate_2.0.4_WIN.afdesign
  6. This problem was in V1 as reported by @NotMyFault. Still present in V2 and in 2.0.4. Hopefully gets needed attention. Problem Difference in ramps Reproduce: 1. Add text to document. 2. "Change" coverage map by clicking in center X/Y and check that pixel bean footage Original V1 thread: Video of behavior (no audio): 23.01.27_01-53-31-PM_NV12_1920x1080.mp4 This feature is really important for typography and logo work since we have no other way to reconstruct how AA works for type in Affinity. So hopefully it gets fixed soon. ❤️
  7. Thank you for the stroke width fixes. Very much appreciated, Serif.
  8. I've noticed a difference in the anti-aliasing aesthetic between programs and I agree there's a 'blurrier' texture to Affinity's anti-aliasing, but could it be that it is because they are using a very neutral LINEAR (0~100% flat ramp) anti-aliasing profile by default. Affinity does tend to favor more neutral design decisions (for better or worse) which involve less hand-holding. Sometimes it requires more adjustment by the designer. The downside, absolute laypersons really don't know why things look weird and will see it as less professional than other software. (For example, having to be aware we have to pixel align even artboards 🙃). I suspect that other programs use a "custom" ramp in order to minimize the "gradient-esk" glow look around the font. Because a straight linear line to to bottom, no curves or adjustments, that's really what anti-aliasing does, it's basically a grayscale gradient outline or outer glow FX set to black with a "Normal" blend mode. FWIW, I don't know that I call that pixelation, if it's not a hinting issue. In PS, we were allowed to set "crisp" settings, etc, specifically for type whereas vectors kept the native anti-aliasing. I don't remember us being able to adjust anti-aliasing at all in AI. However, I suspect it uses a custom/optimized ramp. Affinity allows us to customize it down to our choosing, but then it's not the default experience, so a person must know they have to play with the ramp to clarify edges: Of course, if Affinity does decide to adjust the default profile/ramp, people are going to pitch a fit if they see something in their vectors change and not understand why. So I really do think they should implement a default profile setting IN PREFERENCES for us obsessive folk who need absolute control over our crispy sharp edges and modify the program's experience this way. I may suggest it in feature requests.
  9. I'm having this issue as well. This is the first time I've encountered it, tbqh. Maybe because most of my files I work with are usually really large and I'm zoomed in quite a bit, but this seems new for my machine. 23.01.26_07-26-26-PM_NV12_1920x1080.mp4 Performance Tab: Limit Initial Zoom to 100% is unchecked.
  10. It has a million points to it, but it works-ish. Paste into Designer (as curves). mmm 8-bit.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.