debraspicher

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...

Good to know how it works on Mac. Thanks ❤️

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...

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.

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?

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)

Hey as long as it works

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Staff might be able to help and if they can they'll provide a link, etc, that you could upload to.

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.

+1 vector patterns

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.

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.

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.

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...

I was thinking the same thing. But they're mentioning bottom half of an image now in the above post... @Syberkonda Can you attach a throw away RAW we can just test ourselves on our end? It would exclude your setup. (Something non-important but shows corruption for you)

I'd like them to fix far more bugs than they're doing currently rather than worry about user-elected development cycle(s)... the bugs are a huge turn-off to using the programs and even though I really don't want to as these are the programs I prefer, I'm having to consider other options lest I end up in a situation where I can't use the programs... as it is currently, I have to lower my DPI on my displays to even use Pixel Mode properly. And then there's the BSOD caused by moving certain panels between displays to another (otherwise my computer is a very stable President). I'm not so concerned about future BSODs, but the laissez faire approach towards the growing bugs list is a major red flag... *

How are Layer attributes being directly impacted by a Layer being hidden/unhidden? That's so error-prone.

Very good find.

Try Windows shortcuts to minimize and maximize your Designer window instead of closing it out completely. Try Windows key + down arrow(minimize), then Windows key + up arrow(maximize). Does this give you back your cursor? You might need to bring another app in focus but can use these commands when refocusing on Designers icon in taskbar. I have to do this frequently to regain control of the UI when access between cursor and the application breaks. Also, your PC is from the future... Installed on 9/1/2566.

You're correct, obviously. Or at least I agree with you. In my case I wasn't suggesting an index. I'm happier to have relevant modifiers listed though in that little tooltip. I'd say only "root"-level modifiers, not the myriad of functions available in something like node tool by various key presses. Just some hint to let the user know that if they hold those keys, it modifies the tool in some way. Because Node is largely about selecting things prior to manipulation, then I'd always focus on the selecting portion... because the "using" part of the tool can be researched or checked through help. So not a concrete list of complete functionality akin to the Status menu. Just a tooltip that subtlety hints to the user the tool itself asks you test certain modifiers to understand that this is key to using it more wisely. I hope that is clear. It might not to be, to be honest, bbrother. Because what is evident to one person may not be for another.. However, that's what I'd like see addressed: Applying more polish to the UX so that critical information is made known to make on-boarding a bit easier so a user immediately understands what the tool in their hand is capable of and relates to them more easily. Not necessarily how to use it if that makes sense. Subtlety is actually key to making this process as intuitive as possible. If one modifier key can really open up doors for say one or two tools, then the habit is then learned by the user that this is the standard way *all* tools are "augmented" in the program(s) so that they get a clue how to work with these tools more intuitively, and more importantly, waste less time. To your credit, the way I learned about key object was only because Illustrator explicitly mentions it with a tooltip. Then I know its a functionality available to me and I search how to get a key selection in the help menu. In summary, there are ways to intuitively lead a user down the road in a program that really doesn't have to be explicit at all but guides them to learning to use the program(s) productively. It might even be possible to trim some of these actions down, actually, once a more intuitive approach is found that works consistently across most tools... but as @BBG3 widely states above: Here is one example... This is the Align Panel in Illustrator. Note its layout is all icons short of one lonesome textfield (note the up/down key that shows this is an "adjustment" field... and can you tell what the Align To: does intuitively? Most probably can. Especially if they are accustomed to these tasks in other programs having a certain order/way of being done (in theory, not practice). See the box with the key icon? Can you guess what it says in its tooltip? Here is Affinity's version: Note: 1) There's a dropdown for the "Align to" options (drop downs slow down the user)... in BOTH horizontal and vertical. AI just has one place for specifying distance, which is perfect, imo. 2) There's 4 dropdowns total. Also, not only are they dropdowns, but two require auto to be unchecked (often disabled depending on what you are doing) to even access them... Another detail worth noting: In Illustrator, there is no "Status" menu for showing tool options. Most everything is quickly indicated by a cursor change when certain modifier keys are held or "on hover". If Affinity is lagging or its interface is actually being unresponsive or glitching out, we sometimes can't tell for how long or what is even happening, because I've become accustomed to Affinity's UI/UX remaining unresponsive by design. I've gotten so used to this to some extent that I often feel I can't track what is expected or unexpected behavior. Sometimes no response is expected behavior, which is not very helpful. There's many instances where no cursor change is witnessed. So the argument for UX is not to make it something dummy-proof (never possible... life finds a way), but rather, to save time and learn to work more efficiently and confidently.