Devil_Inside
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Devil_Inside
-
-
1 hour ago, NotMyFault said:
Even in case Affinity allows more decimal digits you will run into potential issues:
if the slice h/w are no multiple of 8, you will get fractional pixel sizes, rounded up to whole pixels by Affinity during export. This rounding can
- lead to small deviations from intended aspect ratio
- may create thin lines at right and bottom edges due to partial alpha
- You have no visual control over anti-aliasing and sharpness when scaling size at export
- and many more adverse effects (moire for fine-detailed patterns).
So I really do not understand choosing this workflow (with scaling by odd float numbers at export) if your target is to get pixel-perfect exports.
I don't care about subpixel rounding errors and I don't need EVERYTHING to be pixel-perfect. My design works just fine with this kind of scaling, I've tried it with workarounds. The limitation under discussion is not subpixel though, it's +/- 2 pixel in my case. In other cases it can be even larger. There is absolutely no reason for it to be limited to 2 decimal places.
-
3 hours ago, Pšenda said:
So for each Slice, instead of a rounded ratio, you enter the corresponding (exactly and correctly calculated) value.
I have 100+ slices which might change their size while I iterate on the design. It's too much pain to recalculate everything manually each time. Ideally this should be fixed internally and work with higher precision by default.
2 hours ago, thomaso said:Alternatively, how about scaling the entire document before export (instead of each slice) for exports with slice size 1x ?
That's a viable solution, which I might try. Thanks!
Currently I scale each slice up to a size large enough that I can later batch-rescale back to the desired size without loss of quality using a 3rd party tool.
I hope this can be properly fixed by Serif so one wouldn't need to jump through this type of hoops.
-
7 years later, this is still an issue. I have 10 folders with subfolders to add manually. Also, every time I press the Add button to open the file browser to select new files, it resets the filetype filter to "Affinity files (.afphoto)", so I have to change that to .png or whatever. I also can't resize using a scale factor, just specific width and height.
Useless tool..
-
13 hours ago, Pšenda said:
Isn't it easier to use the exact dimensions of the output image for export, i.e. "416w, 416h"?
It's not just a fixed 454x454 to 416x416 conversion. I need a lot of slices of different sizes converted using the same scale factor.
-
I've ran into the same issue...
I have a slice which is 454x454. I need to scale it to 416x416, which requires a 0.9163x multiplier. The multiplier is getting rounded to 0.92x, which results in 418x418 instead.
-
My main concern is that with this monetization model, they'll stop releasing new features / making large changes in V2 lifecycle. They'll be holding them off for V3, V4, etc, which will start coming sooner and sooner, until it's a new version every year (aka subscription model).
-
Since there is no proper way to define precise selection size, the suggested way is to select an area with a selection marquee and scale and move that selection marquee using the transform panel. There is an issue with this approach however, as it seems the selection marquee scaling has some weird sampling and the resulted selection has blurry edges and is actually of a different size than what is specified in the transform panel.
This behavior is amplified if the initial selection marquee is very small and is scaled to a very large size, as shown in the following example.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Open a 2048 image and select a small area in the middle of the image using Rectangular Marquee Selection tool
2. Change X, Y, W, H of the selection to 0,0,2048,2048
3. Copy selection to clipboard and go to File -> New From Clipboard
You can clearly see that the resulted pasted image has weird blurry edges. In a lot of cases when you copy and paste a scaled selection, the resulted pasted layer also has a weird increase in size and it differs from the selection that you specified and copied to clipboard. When the difference between the initial selection size and the final scaled selection is small, the issue is not so apparent but it is still there and is very frustrating. It's a "gamebreaking" issue when you need to precisely re-arrange parts of a flat image. You copy one area to the clipboard, you paste and the resulted pasted layer has the wrong size and blurred edges and is impossible to align and position to a new spot.
It is mind-boggling that such a basic feature is so broken.
-
Quickest way to reproduce 100%:
1. Open Affinity Photo
2. Create a new document
3. Select Brush tool
4. Ctrl+Alt+Shift+S
5. Cancel
-
-
So there is no plan to change it? Or it just hasn't happened yet?
-
Any updates on this topic?
-
Wow, just wow, this thread...
I have selected the area I want to keep and crop everything else.
It just boggles my mind that there is no simple option to do that.
- Ígor Jales, pixelstuff, tropilio and 2 others
-
5
-
If you don't want to change the current default behavior, it would be greatly appreciated if some of these values could be exposed in the settings, so everyone could adjust them to their liking. Thanks!
-
Stumbled upon this issue myself. The 15% increment is indeed a really weird decision.
1. I can't switch quickly between 2-3 different brush sizes. If I start with a 64px brush and I go a couple steps up, I'm unable to get back to 64px no matter what I try. It goes 64 -> 73.6 -> 84.6 -> 71.9 -> 61.2
2. Why is there a 57.3px size for a raster brush? It would make a lot more sense to round these values to whole numbers.
3. 1px increment for the Pixel Tool is too small when using larger brushes. This issue is very noticeable when you want to use the [ ] shortcuts to quickly switch between a couple different brush sizes.IMHO the best way to handle this, is to have a predefined range of brush sizes to go through, smaller steps for smaller values, larger steps for larger values.
There is another issue with the Liquify Persona:
Regular Photo Persona brush size slider is exponential, it goes 0-100 for the first half of the slider, and then up to 4k for the second half of the slider. This makes it really convenient when working with smaller brushes.In Liquify Persona, brush size slider is linear, with smaller brush sizes being almost inaccessible due to not only being a small % of 4k, but also due to snapping points on the slider at 32, 64, 128, etc. I haven't been using Liquify Persona much, but is it that common to use 2k - 4k brushes for liquify effects? I never wok with images larger than 4k (rarely 4k), so a 2k - 4k brush seems excessive to me. The performance when using large brushes is also horrible. I was wondering if it would make more sense to use an exponential slider for Liquify Persona as well?
P.S. Similarly to brush sizes, current "CTRL + Scroll" zoom increments also make no sense since you always end up at some weird 147.4% zoom values. A predefined range or just absolute step values would be so much better.
-
1. Create a constrained group of several shapes.
2. Convert it to symbol
3. Create a new instance of that symbol and scale it to see the effect of constraints working
4. Scale one of the shapes inside the first instance and notice that the second instance instantly breaks.
Video with reproduction steps: https://streamable.com/4xqv8
Affinity Designer: ver 1.7.3.481
-
-
-
Thanks for the quick reply.
Yes, I figured now that "sync off" is the solution to my issue, however I hope that this behavior will be changed in the future.
It feels that all the operation that are done to the actual instance (and not it's internal objects) should be applied to that instance only. They shouldn't propagate to the symbol and other instances. Mask is one example. Layer effects is another example, then goes the layer opacity and even layer visibility. IMHO all these make no sense whatsoever.
-
I have 2 instances of 2 different symbols in my scene (4 objects total).
I applied 2 different masks to the 2 instances of the first symbol and it worked as I expected, each symbol instance was masked appropriately by its mask.
When I tried to mask the 2 instances of the second symbol, however, whenever I apply the mask to the first instance, the other instance immediately inherits the mask, so I'm unable to set a different mask for each instance.
I tried to test this in a new empty document, and I couldn't make it work the way the first symbol worked (separate masks for each instance).
This is quite confusing and counter-intuitive. I think the mask shouldn't be part of the symbol.
-
Thanks a lot for a detailed answer, Carl.
I agree that a proper perspective distortion would be the ideal tool for this, but since it's not there, I thought to cheat with simple text on a path.
For the small icon I'm doing I used the method you described, and while not perfect, it's good enough.
Thanks again!
-
Yeah, perspective distortion could be a useful feature, however I don't think I need that kind of precision for my example. It seemed that a text on a path would be a much simpler and quicker way to do it, if the option to keep characters vertically aligned was there.
-
Yes, that's an example of why I need an option to have them vertical.
Hopefully @carl123 has a workaround.
-
I swear I tried this like 50 times before creating this thread and it wouldn't add the new layer to the symbol (the symbol in the Symbols panel wouldn't update, and the newly added layer wouldn't have the orange bar on the left of the icon although being inside the symbol hierarchy).
I tried creating a new instance from the symbols panel now and it worked this time.
I'll try to reproduce and report the issue it if happens again.
Thanks a lot for a quick reply!
-
Yes please!
Hex Value Field in HSL Slider Colour Panel
in Feedback for the Affinity V2 Suite of Products
Posted
This bothers me so much. I use HSL 90% of the time, the remaining 10% is me switching to RGB Hex so I can copy/paste the hex value. So annoying. Hex value should be available in all color selection views.
What could be even better, is if it also had a smaaall "Copy" and "Paste" buttons next to it, so you could copy/paste hex values in one click.