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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

760 profile views
  1. Affinity Photo has a built in benchmark. See: https://affinity.help/photo/en-US.lproj/index.html?page=pages/Extras/benchmark.html?title=Benchmark https://www.notebookcheck.net/Affinity-Photo-2-benchmark-comparison-Apple-M1-faces-off-against-Intel-Core-AMD-Ryzen-and-Nvidia-GeForce.672070.0.html
  2. I hate to be a nagging complainer, but I figured this would be worth a comment. Is Serif a small company with limited resources? Yes. Does Serif have to maintain three different platforms with the same code-base? Yes. But does Serif also have an obligation to make their paid Windows software as optimized, and well maintained and the other two? Yes. I've got an AMD 6700XT paired with a Ryzen 3800X. You may expect this can destroy a little passively cooled Apple laptop or iPad. Unfortunately, that's just not true. With a combined Multi CPU score of 524, this desktop workstation has less performance than an M1 iPad. I'm not sour or jealous at Apple for releasing an objectively amazing product. But the fact is, the M1 does not have a superior CPU to the 3800X. M1 scores about 7000 in Cinebench R23 while the 3800X scores about 13,000. Lets consider something else, my desktop class GPU. With a combined Single GPU score of 1114, and no Multi GPU score, the M1 Max is about 16X faster than my 6700XT. That's not a "wow Apple is so fast they beat everyone" that is a FAILURE to optimize for Windows in any fashion. If anything, it's so slow that it could be considered a fault in the software or a quality assurance problem. To add more insult, hardware acceleration adds so much flickering and stuttering in the UI and canvas that it may as well be left off. Can you blame AMD for this? I'm not so sure. Software like Photoshop or Blender works perfectly fine, with proper acceleration. I'm convinced if someone at Serif had actually USED the Windows version with regularity on different GPU platforms they'd realize how far off the mark they are. Seriously, it's like Windows has been abandoned. (I've owned Affinity 1 on Windows since it just came out of Beta. It may have always been this slow, but I cannot recall.) I also own an iPad and recently sold my MacBook so I know what it is CAPABLE of. If I remember correctly, very fast performance and optimization was one of the selling points of Affinity. Now it's one of the major downfalls, unless you own an Apple product.
  3. Browsers have built in fraudulent website detection features and both Windows and macOS come with built in antivirus software. Just remember you don't really need to spend money on security for general use cases.
  4. When practically every competing software supports an image format and every operating system supports an image format and every web browser supports an image format perhaps that should be on the top of the list for additions to a photo manipulation application. Perhaps Serif should find inspiration from their peers at Pixelmator and support both HEIC and WebP. When we're talking about true professional applications there isn't much room for excuses in my opinion. You either match the versatility and needs of a professional user or you fall behind. Not a good look for what I once considered the modern disrupter in the industry. Both Photo and Designer give me an impression that Serif is sitting on their laurels when there are still so many missing features.
  5. Nobody is pushing anyone to use anything. If you want to spend bandwidth hosting JPEG you can do that. Not that what you've just said has anything to do with WebP support in Affinity. Developers are only more likely to use WebP as time moves forward. The fact is, it fulfills a much needed purpose for web developers who need better compression, or lossy compression with transparency. Web developers do in fact work with pixels. Therefore, a professional photo manipulation software should have WebP support.
  6. What is there to be opinionated about? WebP has better lossy compression than JPEG and better lossless compression than PNG and it supports alpha. That's not a matter of opinion. That's a matter of objective technical superiority. I don't understand why people are go grumpy and opinionated about it. I'm a Mac user so I've already joined Apple's HEIC party, and saved tons of storage space in the process. Image formats are changing. In 2022 it's absolutely a necessity to support next-gen formats for a modern image editor. WebP is ideal because it's open and free. WebP is likely already on many websites you visit every day!
  7. Some Serif developers said they'd get on WebP support 2 years ago in 1.9. Where is it? WebP is better than both PNG and JPEG and its supported by all major browsers.
  8. I feel I should post a little update on this situation. This artwork, which made use of pixel layers masked by vector layers WAS actually able to be exported properly by Affinity Designer. However, the default parameters are bad, and possibly wrong. By default, Affinity Designer has the option of "Rasterize unsupported properties" which causes the entire artwork to be rasterized. I feel like it's untruthful. This suggests the entire document is an unsupported property. When I selected the option to "Rasterize nothing" it exported fine, with all of the previously mentioned properties in tact. (Vector paths, masks, pixel layers, etc.) I'm very satisfied with this result.
  9. I've tried this in browsers as well as Pixelmator Pro and Boxy-SVG, which have far superior SVG support. They all display it properly. (And come highly recommended for SVG work.) The code is literally just one type of shape repeated... <path id="a" d="M2.991,0.815A3.1,3.1 0 0 0 2.991,-0.815L4.825,-1.311A5,5 0 0 1 4.825,1.311"/> with a simple transform to rotate and place it in the correct positions. <use xlink:href="#a" fill="#fe2712" transform="rotate(30)"/> The problem, I believe is that Affinity Designer is incompatible with the CSS rotate transform function. Which honestly, is such a basic feature. Although SVGs typically use the matrix transform function, Affinity should've thought of this when designing for SVG compatibility. Mozilla says: Anyway, I've converted these transforms into matrix transforms, which Affinity supports. BYR_color_wheel.svg
  10. I came here just to post about SVG. Quite frankly, it's a disaster. Affinity Designer barely gets basic properties of SVG right. And the moment you do something Affinity doesn't like, your entire image will be rasterized. No vector output. HELLO? SVG is an incredible vector graphics standard. It has views, symbols, color definitions, gradient definitions, filter definitions, hyperlinking, filters, blending modes, masks, clips, classes, IDs, metadata, plus embedded images. It even supports embedded fonts and embedded web fonts. You can even animate it. Granted, most of the export functions in Affinity Designer are equally messed up. I've got a beautiful vector artwork with embedded pixel layers and it's actually impossible for me to ever view it in anything other than Affinity Designer during these current conditions. (Even though the SVG format could absolutely be compatible.) 100% compatibility with SVG should be an absolute priority because it's the most standardized and advanced way to store vector graphics. Without standardization, there's only lock in. Plus, for all the web developers out there, make the markup clean and please give obvious classes and IDs!
  11. You may be happy to hear I've resolved the issue by reinstalling the software. I really how no idea how this apparent corruption occurred but it was fixed by deleting the software from my system and reinstalling it.
  12. This is a VERY serious issue. I'm on the very latest version of Monterey and the Affinity Designer program is borderline useless on this machine. It's a 16 inch M1 Pro MacBook Pro. I don't even know how to reproduce this, as pretty much all aspects of the program are affected. Things like grabbing curves causes a beachball. Or even entering fullscreen mode. Activity Monitor reports no RAM or CPU usage abnormalities. Here is an attached video. Skip to the end for the grand finale. I've tried disabling GPU acceleration but the problem persists there too. 979777566_ScreenRecording2022-02-14at4_10_49PM.mov
  13. Hello all, I appreciate the feedback on how what I'm doing is wrong (I know it's not a reliable practice.) But this is a feature request post and so far nobody has addressed the idea. I think it's a brilliant one, what does everyone else think?
  14. Ok, this feature request may seem like an odd one, but hear me out. Sometimes I'm just messing around and experimenting in Affinity Designer. When I'm doing this, I prefer to keep stuff loaded up (not saved) because the project isn't good enough to save as a file, or I want to resume working on it later. My unorthodox method of keeping projects that are a work-in-progress or just experimentation is to force quit Affinity Designer so when I get back in, my files will be pulled up from an unsaved state automatically. This is especially useful because it can remind me about projects next time I launch the software, and I don't have to come up with names or folders to store a project I don't know enough about yet. Also, everyone knows how projects can quickly add up and get buried over time. My feature request is to have a "quick save" button which will save things in the same manner of a force quit, except I don't have to use task manager. In other words, just save the state of the software as it is, instead of forcing me to save them as project files. I think this will be super convenient and make my personal workflow better. Then, next time the software is opened instead of "unsaved projects" there would be "quick saved projects" if you clicked the button in question.
  • 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.