jclounge

Sorry I meant to clarify that I'm particularly talking about the second half of the video where he builds up the tree from a template ball of foliage. He clones different parts of the foliage and stamps them around the place. Also he uses different brushes for the cloning shape as he goes along, which makes nice rough/leafy edges no matter which part of the foliage the clone is coming from.

Interesting! Can you please tell me a better way to do something like that technique in the video? Edit: I'm particularly talking about the second half of the video where he builds up the tree from a template ball of foliage.

If you create a new layer and paint something smallish in the middle of it, and then create a global source using that layer, when you then go to clone that source onto another layer it works except that the scale is massively stretched (depending on how much of the canvas you initially painted into inside the source layer). One workaround I've found is to make sure to paint a little bit of scrap material into the extreme corners of the global source layer first, then the dodgy stretching doesn't happen. I'm trying to do something close to what's shown in this video, seems like a pretty good workflow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWEPFWkqM68 Cheers, Jules

Amazing brushes once again, thanks Stuart!

Lovely brushes, thanks Stuart!

Sorry for replying to an old thread, but I ran into this issue too. To the devs: Could there at least be a "Paste with same physical size" option in the edit menu? Ideally there would also be a preference setting to always do this by default.

Hey thanks MEB! I tried turning off Better Touch Tool and the problem went away! It's also possible to disable BTT only for the Affinity apps, which is not ideal but still much nicer than having the jumpy panning. You just made my day so much better!

Thanks Chris, I was already in OpenGL mode, but also now tried changing the modes to Metal and Software, and the jumping still happens. When instead holding the space bar down and using the left-button, the problem does not seem to occur, so it appears likely something to do with just the middle button panning. Also, you can tell for sure when the jump has happened even if it happens quickly, since the mouse ends up pointing to a totally different part of the canvas, which has jumped from under the mouse instead of sticking to it like glue as you would expect. Strangely, if dragging always in the same direction the problem seems to be reduced after the first drag. But if dragging each time in a different direction, the jumps happen almost every time.

Hi there, When using the middle mouse-button to pan, there is very often a large and disorienting jump in the panning position. The only time it doesn't seem to happen is when very slowly and cautiously engaging and disengaging the pan. Since I instinctively always try to pan fairly briskly, the jump happens almost all of the time, which is extremely annoying. Cheers, Jules

I don't buy the argument that it would be heavier or more complicated to maintain. Clearly the two apps are using the vast majority of their codebases the same as each other. They can both load each other's file formats, and can both even edit things that only the other app can create, as if they created those things themselves. If they are supposed to serve such different purposes, then why would they ever need to be so tightly compatible? It's plainly ridiculous to pretend they are hugely different in their purposes. Until I see any evidence otherwise, what looks far more likely is that it's a coldly calculated marketing decision. Plus, having two separate apps has certainly not made either one very bug-free, and has caused issues between them where there should be none. I would bet that it is in fact harder to maintain the apps separately because it means keeping track of all their arbitrary superficial differences, and expending time and energy deciding on just the right balance of differences to force people to buy both apps. If they were combined into one app, I would wager that the 1.5 release would have arrived around the same time, with just as many features, and far fewer bugs due to less duplication of effort and dividing of focus.

I stumbled across this issue recently too. When are Designer and Photo going to be merged into a single app the way they probably always should have been? It's a bit annoying having some tools/options here, other tools/options there, breaking compatibility like you have just done, etc.

Has there yet been any progress on enabling pasteboard visibility to Affinity Photo?

Hi folks, I just noticed another bug, this time with the clone and healing brushes in Photo. The clone brush does not obey the force pixel alignment option. This becomes a problem when there is fine-grained texture or very small text or detail that must be cloned. To see what I mean, follow these steps: 1. create a new document and make force pixel alignment enabled. 2. create a grey rectangle. 3. add maximum noise to the rectangle. 4. rasterise the very noisy rectangle. 5. zoom all the way in to clearly see the pixel detail of the noise. 6. select the clone brush tool and set a source point for cloning. 7. without clicking, move the mouse around to preview the clone At this last step, you can see that it's hard to ensure that the clone will be sharp, as most of the time it is off pixel alignment and the resampling destroys all the detail. This is pretty bad. I was wondering why my cloned areas were so blurry, and this was the reason. Also, here are some other issues I noticed while trying to reproduce the clone/heal alignment bug: 1. If you make a fill layer and add noise, either with live or static filters, no noise appears. In fact it looks like no filters or adjustments work when nested inside a fill layer. This is odd, especially because filters and adjustments will work on shapes such as rectangles. 2. Even though adjustments and filters can be nested inside each other at the root tree level, the nested one does not get applied. Cheers, Jules

Hi all, I just found a bug with nudging which exists in the latest versions of both Designer and Photo (v1.4.1). Steps to reproduce it: 1. create a new document 2. paint some squiggles with a pixel-based brush 3. marquee a rectangle region in the squiggles 4. duplicate the region with CMD-J 5. select the move tool 6. move the copied piece with the mouse near to where you want to put it 7. nudge the piece with the arrow keys At the last step, the copied piece jumps back to the position it was before you moved it with the mouse. Cheers, Jules

@Ben, yes I can appreciate that. The more I think about it, the more it seems difficult to find a good balance even in theory, let alone in practice I'm sure. The candidate system you've got is pretty good and quite clever, and it's great that you're refining it. I'm just throwing some ideas out there in the hope that it might be useful. So here's just two more ideas, and then I'm out I promise: 1: Just looking at Inkscape for a moment, it doesn't seem to even allow snapping to infinitely extended box edges like Affinity does, so the majority of the clutter problem is eliminated that way. Maybe something a bit like that could be a "simple" mode: Where all objects are snappable, but they will only snap when up close. Where "close" could be defined as something like within 1X or 2X the size of the object. It wouldn't be overly inelegant to add as a setting either, boiling down to something like one toggle between two snap candidate modes, "short-list" or "proximity", and one proximity limit value. Maybe if that's no good because it loses the guideline-style snapping to objects at a distance, then here's another idea: 2: What if all objects are snappable, but could be explicitly flagged as extending their box lines to infinity for snapping against, and by default only their finite non-extended box edges are snappable. Then the clutter issue is decreased by default, but there's still an option to be able to line objects up at distant parts of the canvas. With the point about games, I understand that this is not exactly the same thing, but also think that there are relevant similarities. I was just agreeing with you by disagreeing with Oval that performance is likely the issue. Anyway, I think you're doing great work, and this is just my (possibly naive and misguided) thoughts to add to the mix. :) Cheers, Jules