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

debraspicher

Members
  • Posts

    1,308
  • Joined

Everything posted by debraspicher

  1. These aren't bugs or "issues", this feature is unfinished. It should be immediate priority.
  2. I understand the theory behind the stickiness from @walt.farrell's post (thank you there, walt) in the other thread, but it also defies the point of having individualized brushes in the first place. Which is to have "on hand" a set of brushes that perform consistently on an as-needed basis. Even walt's explanation of this being a "ternary setting" would suggest (to me, anyway) this was conjured with "developer logic" in mind. I'm not the maker of 99% of my brushes in Affinity, so when it comes to experimenting, I always end up having to turn it off when returning to do mask work. Of course I always forget. Settings that shut on and off seemingly at random (from user POV) creates unneeded tension between users and the programs and generates needless support requests. I remember when I first ran into this problem. It took me a bit to realize what had happened so I was pointlessly trying to work. Time wasted I will never get back. Normally I assume I had done something wrong, so I was checking Layers and blend settings, etc to see if I had hit a keyboard shortcut (which I did in PS at times). I had no idea a program would be causing it "intentionally", because that seemed so counterproductive. Anyway, this is yet another example of arrogant design decisions from Serif. I "know" to setup the masking brushes to prevent this, yes. But I've had this issue with "creative" brushes as well. I sometimes can't tell whether "Wet edges" is intentionally set or not for other people's sets. There have been times it was seemingly obvious that setting was not intended, so I have to turn it off and check. But yes, I have to check the brush settings to see how it was intended/optimized just to simply test a new brush I'd bought. So you know what I do when I encounter this? I just go back to my other program which behaves perfectly rationally and ignore the brush engine even more... that's the cold reality.
  3. Try Alt + Spacebar to get the menu so you can press M for "Move", then use arrow keys to move window... obviously while that window is selected. Press Enter. You can test it on other windows to check how it should behave.. hopefully it allows you in this case I can't get to PC to check for myself, atm..
  4. It is best to keep a social media/sRGB preset for uploading to web. sRGB is the standard applied when no profile is embedded or the profile is corrupt. Color profiles can get dropped when uploaded to sites which use backend scripts which ignore profiles when reprocessing the image for rescale. Sometimes thumbnails get this treatment and it can cause color shifts between thumbs and uploaded sources. *Many things can happen also if the client redownloads their imagery from online, as they are apt to do, edit it or resave for themselves someplace and it is very likely to lose a profile that way. In short: Always use sRGB for web, especially where redistribution is likely (even accidental), unless it is for other artists, ie usually portfolios. Even if most machines can support embedded color profiles and that site supports non-sRGB standards, etc, you don't want a users screenshot of that image showing a terrible color shift floating around in the wild if their particular hardware or third party application accessing that site cannot support displaying it. CMYK is supported by some browsers but I would not trust it as well-regulated support as CMYK is designed for printers.
  5. Wet edges once again. It turns itself on when you go through brushes and doesn't turn itself off. Very annoying when using painterly brushes and moving to mask. So yes, have to keep an eye on that setting... at least it's in the context toolbar and can be turned off easily.
  6. If it's using vendor drivers (whoever sourced your card that wasn't Nvidia), they tend to update less frequently and stop after a while. Nvidia's site always gives the very latest and will be compatible. Windows might be following suit by giving you the "last known stable" per your manufacturer, if that makes sense...
  7. We don't have the "Acquire Image" option in Windows for Affinity, but I have a Brother printer and this sounds right. Using something like a WIA driver (Windows image acquisition) will tend to only scan up to the optical resolution (limited by hardware). Mac probably has the same caveat. This is the OS utility for accessing the driver of the scanner and is what non-Brother software would likely use to get scanner functionality directly in their programs. Photoshop also used the WIA driver. My own Brother printer has the same limitation unless I use the printer's native UI which gives me resolutions far higher than 1200 dpi (and probably looks horrific..) These work differently than Brother's own printer/UI which takes the image once it is scanned and does its own magic. Technically, you could do the same in Affinity by scanning in at the lower resolution and blowing it up higher... or just use the Brother software if you prefer the result. If you were on Windows, then I would suggest to use something third party like NAPS2 that provide straightforward access to your scanner, but give more options such as using the printer's native UI to get access to the extra functionality without all bloat of the manufacturer software. There is a Mac version supposedly, but I have not tried it obviously... I tend to right click on the scan, hit copy and open it from the clipboard when I'm done. It's really not that much more work, but you'll have to play around with the settings to find out what gets the best results from your printer's driver... Since your printer is also Brother, this is the settings for me that would work to get to the better functionality. For what it's worth, I don't really use my Brother for scanning color pieces as I only use it to print mockups, tabloid and the rare Fax... I have a portable flatbed that scans at a somewhat better resolution, so I typically use that..: WIA limits the DPI to 300 for this setup...
  8. I have noticed brushwork (raster) also is impacted by zoom as far as how smooth the line is drawn, particularly related to performance/jitteriness. It changes the line quality and characteristics considerably for different brushes which is quite odd. I have to intentionally work at different zoom levels to get consistent results. It is probably because it seems to effect pressure where quick(er) strokes are involved, probably related to the same issues with responsiveness. It adds to the feeling that it isn't as reliable of a tool as it should be. I can't think of any other program that I have used that has these inconsistencies. Clip Studio is what I transitioned my painterly side to post-Adobe and it is simply rock solid even compared to Adobe's PS.
  9. Except we often can't tell what is a bug or "expected" behavior when other aspects of functionality are so often forcibly designed to someone's detriment, as is often pointed out by other users here. You might also consider these bugs or snafus or whatever we might call them have existed for so long that workarounds essentially become the defacto workflow. So to that end, does it actually matter from a user POV that it was labeled a bug to be fixed in the backend if it remains in the program through multiple releases?
  10. Not to nitpick this in particular as it's just one such example, but it would be much easier to simplify processes wherever possible so as to have to avoid having to recall these little nuances. For a vast majority of users, nuances have almost no meaning and often induce additional headaches where one can't figure out that such a simple functionality actually involves additional complexities. Especially coming from other programs, this can be really be a hurdle to migrate when that person is having to unlearn the software form of "muscle memory" so to speak. I say this so it can be shared on the backend if it would be productive. While commitment to design philosophies are admirable to a point, long-term little these tensions multiply and add up to a poor user experience. Even for volunteers also, who have to constantly reframe how things work for new/onboarding users because we have to constantly remind ourselves (and others) what the user should actually be troubleshooting, versus focusing on what they should be attempting to do. I imagine this is tedious for staff also? It's also a headache to user test because as you've also seen, it's very easy to get these little nuances mixed up when trying to just give practical input. It can impact giving quality feedback because the expectations are often laid so far out of the box, so much so we start looking for nuances and troublesome snafus out of habit when we needed to look for simplicity! Recent example, a few of us were trying to help a user with getting Artboards sorted and apparently we had to learn that Power Duplicate doesn't work on Artboards. He solved his issue by hitting the "Insert Artboard" button. (Genius!) If it's making supposed veterans prone to simple user errors, then that's a problem. I don't think it's because the user is an idiot or that staff doesn't know the programs. I think it's because this "by design" approach is inherently antagonistic, often requiring a ton of memorization, and that's the complete opposite of an organized and efficient user experience. More akin to a developer mindset than a user-driven one. (I'm not expecting a response btw, just leaving this out there)
  11. Weird, I seem to remember it working with Artboards. Admittedly I type things in manually most of the time and use a lot of hand written manual positioning because I'm weird like that.
  12. I don't personally use any modifiers when lining up my boards. Snapping usually does well enough and it will also inform you on the gap distance. Either way, you have more options than you think... To move them manually, I often use Transform panel to keep them mathematically consistent... an easy way to do this is to use variables... "w + {gap size}", where 'w' means "width of the object" you are transforming... so "w + 100" would be width + 100 document units... so if you are using px units, then it is 100 px... if all your Artboards are the same size and you'd like to keep the same gaps, you can use Power Dupicate (Ctrl + J) to duplicate the Artboard again using the same offset after the initial transform of the first duplicate... so you'd only do manual input once. You may need to look up Power Duplicate especially to understand the process of Ctrl + J* You can also use the new Move dialog that has a "Duplicate" option,... the "w" variable won't work there though, which is annoying. But if you know your width already, then it's just a matter of putting the number in manually and using "+ {gap size} in the input field, it will give you your total X/Y shift... then check duplicate and select how many you need... Edit: None of this is to say I don't agree with you on the pitfalls of subpixel positioning... far too easy to throw things out of alignment in Affinity.
  13. I understood what you meant personally. I think it's a great suggestion. I wouldn't use preloaded ones terribly much, but I use many of my own created templates and it's very important to be able to "just start" when the moment strikes. If they do preload some templates, they should be very good templates. Of such quality that it would be a good model for any user to begin to figure out the program. Imo, that should be the ultimate goal. We will all end up adjusting templates as we need anyway, but a "place to start" when first learning would make optimal use for most new users.
  14. Issue still present. I'd like to include more video because it sustained the behavior beyond even the first strokes. Here I was even just trying to do something basic for my daughter for a quick print out to give her small art to work with and as soon as I went to try to paint inside under Designer > Pixel Persona, it was impossible to work with it this way visually because I couldn't "preview" what I was doing on canvas. Moving it to Photo didn't make the painting process any smoother. It's very disappointing because when I continue to try to move portions of my workflow to these programs, I run into issues like this constantly that remind me it's not reliable enough yet (for me) for even part of my illustration workflow... So I guess just count this as a bump, but I've brought more video here in case it was helpful. Disabling OpenCL didn't help. I had it disabled when I started. 24.02.13_06-38-01-PM_NV12_3840x2160.mp4 24.02.13_06-43-36-PM_NV12_3840x2160.mp4 flower.afdesign
  15. Try minimizing and remaximizing the window. This is something I have lived with for a while. You can do it with Windows key + down arrow, then Windows key + up arrow... or use the task bar.
  16. Staff might be able to help and if they can they'll provide a link, etc, that you could upload to.
  17. That shouldn't be the case?... if the API for the UI is well-written anyway. (If things are still being rewritten, it's totally feasible it could be in the dog**** state atm) I'd be fine with the ability to float all the panels including Snapping, but I'd like the option to keep it as it is. I'm actually fine with Align being only up top. In fact, if I could "lock" ANY panel up top... that'd be more awesome.
  18. Yes, in many cases a simple functionality that could line things up in a reasonable-ish fashion would be suitable. In the future if Artboards have attributes such as "time created", etc, that a script could take advantage of then clients could manage their document a bit more gracefully with their own form of automation.
  19. If you're accustomed to Illustrator, it accommodates for these little things very often and when it's suddenly staring right at us in Affinity, it can be crazy-making. Sometimes the lines appear. Sometimes not. I sparingly used Outer Stroke and just noticed it recently over a background image myself. Small details like this go a long way if they could address this, but that's been said on here before. Turning off AA doesn't really work because it makes the whole of the stroke look terrible. Other people suggested to create an additional stroke. For text, sometimes I just duplicate it and adjusted the fill/stroke alignment in the lower one to fill in that gap because by the time I'm styling, I'm not doing much adjustment anyway.
  20. For some reason, this is creatively soothing. All those little possibilities arranged according to their own infinity. Also thank you for the visual explanation as to what "Tidy" does. I'm a bit nutty when it comes to document grid arrangement, so I probably would never use this, but there's certainly a usecase. One big use for such a functionality is to clear up any Artboard arrangements in the decimels. If it utilizes the current document grid (in View>Grids and Axis...), that would be even smarter. Anything beyond that would be better done with a script when that becomes available.. which you're probably a good candidate for.
  21. Yes, it's a gradual erosion of trust and that's how damage is done overtime. When everything works seamlessly, of course there's no problem because there's nothing like these programs and it feels rather fresh. For some people, this is more the norm perhaps depending on their usage, but we can't know how many that is. We've agreed on your comments and others in the past on some regressions in V2, however. Although, I can't comment as much on iPad because I've not had a need for one (if I did, it would be for Procreate). They really just need to take the UX complaints/bug complaints more seriously and use that to strengthen the foundation. I think the foundation is there, but it's being weakened by the ever-existing long bug list. I recognize everyone's position and complaints are different in terms of costs, scale, time spent in program and general trust in the programs, so in my case, I can only say it's not a matter of projecting my "version" of trust as being more superior over another, but rather saying for myself out loud I'm on this end and this is what I'm seeing for myself as one daily user... I see what you're saying. If someone has put in the time and effort into the product, learning it, investing in it with materials, honing one's workflow, then there's some kind of exact cost for that user intuitively that they expect to see a return on. If they feel increasingly they've not gotten back what they've put in in exchange for their "faith", they are much more likely to move on. This is good in the sense that they're not strapping themselves down to one platform if they have other options at their disposable (this keeps them also creatively flexible). Competition could also force these companies to deal with their ridiculousness on the software end, more accountable in how they proceed with design at the expense of the everyday user. That said, there's less solid competition on the Windows side, at least depending on what one is focusing on. Depending on what field a user falls under, that can make a huge difference in complaints, imo, if their options are more specialized/unique...
×
×
  • 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.