Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

Max N

Members
  • Posts

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Max N

  1. 8 hours ago, telemax said:

    This only works with a special layer created in Affinity Designer. This allows you to work with many objects in a particular layer, ignoring everything except this layer. This way you can work with a very complex design without being afraid of accidentally moving objects on the bottom layers.

    Layer.png.446bb58b834e4f0cf9e9239d922fa507.png

    Now it is clear. And I at AP tried to figure out how the tool works, and did not see the difference. It turns out I tried the wrong program. Thanks for the answer. Help is not always enough to understand what works and how.
  2. On 5/5/2021 at 1:36 PM, Gabe said:

    Hi @Max N,

    This sounds more like a feature/improvement request rather than a bug. keeping the aspect ratio would require a new(different) way of handling the projection. Your example is an "easy win" because the edges are somehow equal (top/bottom , left/right), but what about this scenario? Top and bottom are fairly equal, but the left/right are not. So, it has to stretch/compress at some point. Otherwise, if it keeps the same shape and just "crops/zooms to fit" what is the purpose of the projection?  

    Moved to feature requests. 

    image.png

    Good day. I have added some clarifications. I would like to receive an answer that this is really not a bug and that this is how it works. I am recording a lesson on YouTube, and if this is a mistake, then I will wait for the correction. If this is the way it should be, then I will write down with recommendations how to minimize this effect.

  3. 3 hours ago, loukash said:

    In your example, I would actually completely reverse the workflow and use live text with live perspective filter instead:

    aph_live_perspective_live_text.png.5f9d97310cb27feb3defec632c12a7e2.png

     

    Other than that, I support this "feature/improvement request".

    Thanks for the advice. I wanted to record a video of using this tool and how it distorts I found it very old. I thought it was a program error. The distortion occurs not taking into account the shape of the selection, but taking into account the size of the original document.

  4. 5 hours ago, Gabe said:

    Hi @Max N,

    This sounds more like a feature/improvement request rather than a bug. keeping the aspect ratio would require a new(different) way of handling the projection. Your example is an "easy win" because the edges are somehow equal (top/bottom , left/right), but what about this scenario? Top and bottom are fairly equal, but the left/right are not. So, it has to stretch/compress at some point. Otherwise, if it keeps the same shape and just "crops/zooms to fit" what is the purpose of the projection?  

    Moved to feature requests. 

    image.png

     

    4.thumb.jpg.85579159ede1ca76f67235c763848690.jpg

    Even to be more precise.

    X and Y - are the dimensions of the document.

    A1, A2 and B1, B2 - are the sizes of the selected area.

    I expect that:

    A = (A1 + A2) / 2

    B = (B1 + B2) / 2

    the formula is not accurate (for example, it may be difficult to correct it correctly).

    In real:

    A = Y

    B = X

    Application of X and Y in the split - gives the accuracy no higher than the use of any random number.

    If we take into account the size of the selected area in the calculations, then this can give a more predictable result. I think that the formulas should be more complicated and the algorithms are smarter than those that I suggested. But stretching the area to fit the document without taking into account the shape of the selection is daunting.

     

  5. 4 hours ago, Gabe said:

    Hi @Max N,

    This sounds more like a feature/improvement request rather than a bug. keeping the aspect ratio would require a new(different) way of handling the projection. Your example is an "easy win" because the edges are somehow equal (top/bottom , left/right), but what about this scenario? Top and bottom are fairly equal, but the left/right are not. So, it has to stretch/compress at some point. Otherwise, if it keeps the same shape and just "crops/zooms to fit" what is the purpose of the projection?  

    Moved to feature requests. 

    image.png

    Perhaps due to the difficulties of translation, I could not convey my idea correctly. I'll try to show it to a picture

     

    3.thumb.jpg.b60496e8cdb1ae5be6e16e911af39d1b.jpg

    Let me explain. When forming the image (perspective) Coordinates A and B are not taken into account. Although they are related to the image. But perspective is stretched to X and Y dimensions. As a result, a figure with an aspect ratio of 1:16 will be displayed in 1: 1 with the strongest distortion. The aspect ratio of the object (A: B) is not taken into account when calculating the image, and instead of (A: B), (X: Y) is used. This leads to severe distortion. The cat side can become long and the long one short.

     

     

  6. I do not understand if this is an idea or a mistake. There is no way to resize a panel with a color wheel (palliter). You can change the size of the palliter in width, but not in height. As a result, if you want to accurately select a color on the color wheel, especially with a mouse, it turns into a fascinating attraction. I would like to name the ability to scale the color wheel (palliter), in this version it is extremely small.

    79762007_.thumb.JPG.55be249f2e66c319ad432155c46221bc.JPG

    Even if I collapse all the panels, I will have an empty unnecessary distance at the bottom, but the palliter will not resize. The screenshot shows how it looks in Krita and in AP. In Photoshop, if I'm not mistaken, you can also scale the panel and choose a color without aiming like a sniper. I myself do not draw and this function is not critical for me, but the subscriber paid attention to this and wrote a comment. I tried how it works in AP and other programs and I'm sad. 🙁

    The palette is where size matters.

  7. 13 minutes ago, Uncle Mez said:

    1- Talking Hardware Acceleration and drivers etc.

    I'm planing to buy this GPU before end of 2021: GEFORCE GTX 1660 Ti 
    Will it enable that feature on Affinity?

    2- Hardware Acceleration seem to be sort of enabled by default when it is manually disabled on non supported devices, I hope this new build fixes it because it makes the app lag on stuffs it wasn't lagging before which is anoying and/or deal breaker as Affinity had the reputation of being lighter, fast and not resources demanding.

    BTW I'm fetching this build now and will test it later in the day.
    Blessings.

    I have 1660 Super. Graphics acceleration works under Windows 10.

  8. 1 hour ago, Gabe said:

    I know this looks fairly obvious, but I've tried it and it seems fine. Do you mind saving both images as afphoto, and upload them here along with your mesh file? 

    In principle, I cannot get two identical images. Tried it on different files, but it always turns out not what you save.

    I started recording the lesson, and I ran into the problem that the grid, when applied to the same image, but with a different resolution, changes the image. As a result of the lesson, it was postponed until the problem was fixed.
     
    The file turned out to be very large.

     

  9. I have an idea to record a lesson on frequency decomposition (retouching leather, metal, fabric options). But if you record now, you will have to show the program with bugs, and I will not be able to show some of the tricks at all to AP, because for this you need a shift, at the moment they will only work in Phhotoshop. Of course, I can record at work in Photoshop and insert a video into the lesson, with the words "this will work in AP when the brush is repaired" but it will be strange to say the least. I would like to inspire love for the program in my videos, and not scare away with bugs.
  10. On 9/27/2019 at 3:28 PM, Chris B said:

    Hi Max N,

    Two bugs here.

    First - Switching layers should not restore the fill to white—when I paint, it isn't white either so this is a clear UI bug. I think this might be logged but I'm not sure. 

    Second - Resetting the fills was added in 1.7 and the shortcut should be 'D' however, this was not implemented on Windows (omission) and is already logged. I'll give it a kick :) 

     

    Good day. The problems remain relevant.

    Plus there was a third problem.

     

    The mix brush in AP, apparently due to its low popularity, remains the most buggy tool in my rating. I'd like to get a tool that works predictably.

    This is no longer just a request, but a cry for help.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | 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.