Jump to content

MattP

Moderators
  • Content count

    4,202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MattP

  1. MattP

    Introduce Yourself

    Hi, I'm Matt Priestley and I'm one of the Affinity developers. I'll try to help out on any topic, but particularly anything relating to tools, views and document drawing as they're the bits I'm mostly responsible for writing. Feel free to join me and introduce yourself, too! :)
  2. Incidentally, the 'Expand Stroke' function is about to get a LOT better very soon...
  3. Hi bures, I'm really sorry you're encountering this problem. Sadly, this is a common artefact in many vector drawing applications that you'll see when you clip things... An 'inner' stroke is actually performed in the rendering engine by clipping, so you see the artefact when you perform this function. To illustrate that the problem is not just a Designer bug, here is the same artefact from 'inside stroke' in CorelDraw 2019: We will work to improve this over time, but it requires a different approach. I think it's currently only Illustrator that renders these stroke styles without artefacts. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but in the meantime, I'd suggest considering how you can construct your shapes differently. Once you start working in other ways then it actually isn't a problem at all, but I appreciate that's not what you're used to doing, so can only offer my apologies in the meantime... Thanks, Matt
  4. To confirm what @fde101 rightly says, requests are read and acted upon. Nobody is deliberately not replying to things and we're also not trying to ignore stuff either - we're all just busy typing (as you'd hope!) so yes, I can confirm we do see the value in the request and I'll make sure to have another chat with @Ben about it as he has fairly recently refreshed a lot of these tools and I think he could add it pretty swiftly now Thanks for your continued patience - we do appreciate it Matt
  5. As I've already said that is exactly what I am not asking you to do: I am asking you to test it for me to let me know if it solved your energy usage issue. This is to help me look into the problem. This is because I don't have any other users with the problem so I'm having to ask you to help me. I have suggested to you that I personally don't think you should see a difference in the performance of Designer irrespective of what GPU it is running on so I'd just run it on the integrated GPU if I was experiencing your problem. This does not mean that we have now said 'there is no problem!' and it does not in any way imply that we will not look at what is going on with your energy usage when it's using the discreet GPU. I hope that is sufficient information Matt
  6. Hi deeds, I'm not suggesting any of the things you're saying. I was simply asking if you'd try something out for me and tell me if it fixes the problem you're seeing, that's all - I just simply wanted to know and I'm trying to help you. Other people are not coming forward saying they have this problem. This doesn't mean the problem isn't real, it means that you're the only person I've spoken to about the problem and I'm trying to get as much information as possible about it from you so I can look at it. For reference, as I said earlier, changing Affinity Designer to use the integrated GPU should make essentially no difference to the apparent performance of the application - we use only a small amount of hardware for presentation of the document's render so you shouldn't even notice a difference. My laptop shows no noticeable difference running integrated or discreet. If yours is showing a very marked difference in performance then something is wrong somewhere - not necessarily with our application. All of the heavy work is done on CPU no matter what option you've chosen and we're asking to draw a few hundred primitives to the screen which even a 1990s GPU would've excelled at, so if your integrated GPU is chugging at that then there is a problem... Thanks again, Matt
  7. Errr, I'm not asking you not to use your discreet GPU for everything on your machine - I'm asking you to try to use the setting in Affinity Designer to just use the low-power (integrated) GPU and see if it gets rid of your problem. Your discreet GPU will carry on working just fine in any other applications... If you could let me know what your results are that's all I'm asking. As I said, it's in the Affinity Designer -> Preferences -> Performance tab and it's labeled as "Use only integrated GPU". It only affects how Affinity Designer requests a hardware surface from the OS and it will have no other knock-on effects for your other programs.
  8. When I set my preferences to 'Use only integrated GPU' I don't even see the Affinity apps appearing on the 'Using Significant Energy' area of the battery dropdown... Have you tried this option? Edited to say: I believe the 'energy usage' you're seeing is as a result of the fact that the app is keeping the full GPU 'alive' due to the hardware render surface requesting this... If you use the integrated GPU (as per the option I mentioned) I see basically no usage at all...
  9. Hi deeds, Can I check what you've got set in 'Preferences'->'Performance'->'Display'? I'm using 'OpenGL' (which is the default) and I have 'Enable Metal compute acceleration' enabled (again, the default if your Mac supports it). I am running a 2018 MacBook Pro, 6 core i9 with Radeon Pro 560X GPU and I run these apps (Designer, Photo and Publisher) all open, all day along with many other apps - my Mac is not running hot, not using excessive battery and is not showing any adverse effects from having the apps open. As an example, here is my Activity Monitor from a moment ago - both Designer and Publisher are running but inactive... As you can see, neither application is preventing the system from sleep (so they are not rampantly generating messages or poking things to refresh) and they both support App Nap, so are playing nicely with timers. The only thing I can think of that may be affecting you is that you'll note they both state 'Requires High Perf GPU' which is because they are allowed to use the Radeon GPU. If you don't want this, you can choose the option 'Preferences'->'Performance'->'Use only integrated GPU' which will force the hardware display to run only on the integrated Intel GPU which will be more than adequate for the view requirements. I'm not saying there's nothing we could do to improve things, but I'm saying that a good first step will be to check your preference options and see how it affects the behaviour you're observing. It is true to say that I'm not experiencing the problems you describe, but I've also not got your software, nor am I undertaking your workflow, so there may be something to investigate. Just to add, lets please keep all comments on-topic and about the software, not personal comments or attacks - that goes for everyone Many thanks, Matt
  10. MattP

    Old Wings

    That's great!!!
  11. Hi saikat, There have been a number of fixes already made for version 1.8 that should address the bulk of this, hopefully we can improve things much further in the future too... We are about to release a 1.7.3 version which is mainly compatibility fixes, but we plan to make 1.8 beta available in the not-too-distant future Many thanks, Matt
  12. Status: Release candidate Purpose: Features, Improvements, Fixes Requirements: Purchased Affinity Designer Mac App Store: Submitted Download: Here Hello, We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of the first release candidate build of Affinity Designer 1.7.3 for macOS. If this is your first time using a customer beta of an Affinity app, it’s worth noting that the beta will install as a separate app - alongside your store version. They will not interfere with each other at all and you can continue to use the store version for critical work without worry. This beta is an incremental update to the 1.7.2 version recently released to all customers. We recommend that you use this beta in preference to the store version if you are affected by any of the issues listed below. Matt Changes Since 1.7.2 - Fix for importing .abr brushes - Fix for masked adjustment groups drawing incorrectly - Fix for PSD import crash - Miscellaneous text fixes and improvements - Fix for brush angle input occasionally producing an unwanted artefact when used as a dynamic - MacOS Catalina compatibility
  13. Yes, it does explain why things are faster when they're grouped. The problem seems to be around some of the picture frame/text flow changes added for Publisher... they should be easy enough to get around so we'll try to sort them out asap Sorry for the inconvenience in the meantime...
  14. Hi saikat, Thanks for the file - I'm going to look into this... Designer didn't perform this badly a while ago with files like this, so it can definitely be resolved... Leave it with me Hopefully you can see from the rendering performance that we have no fundamental issues with there being this many objects in the document, but it appears that something in our command architecture is now incurring an overhead, which with larger selections is becoming noticeable. I feel sure we can make this go away... Matt
  15. I've not had time to use it with Designer yet - so many things to do!
  16. No problems, CraftLe@rner! Maybe update us with a photo of your results whenever you get chance - I've always enjoyed seeing how people use their cutting machines! I've got a Craft Robo at home that I've had for ages, but I've not used it for a while...
  17. Here is the test curve svg - the first curve I created. Try for yourself, there is no lying (obviously - why on Earth would there be?) and the results are the results I showed. testcurve.svg And what exactly is the point of you trying Affinity Designer 1.7 when we've acknowledged the problem and I clearly labelled the results I showed as being from Affinity Designer 1.8 Beta. Many thanks for your input, Matt
  18. LOL! Thanks for explaining things to me, very educating, I'll try to do better in the future. So if everything else is so accurate, do you want to explain to me what I'm seeing here? (Blue background, white curve, semi-transparent pink result of expansion) and, just for those commenters who are about to say "But what about CorelDraw? You didn't include it and it would've been perfect!"... (white background, black original curve, pink expanded result) You'll notice that NOBODY has the right answer because - as I stated A LOT before - there IS NO RIGHT ANSWER because one curve does not perfectly become one other curve at an offset - MATHS DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! It becomes potentially many curves, but in different ways. You need to use an algorithm to generate the offset and the results of the algorithm will vary. So... sorry to break the awful news, but.... we're actually not that bad. Shocker. Double-shocker is the fact that I've actually shown you that we really do actually have a new stroke expansion function and the 'fanboys' aren't actually fanboys at all - they're just not ridiculously pessimistic keyboard warriors. /micdrop
  19. Hi! I'm not sure if it will work or not, but can I suggest you try the options "Flatten transforms" and/or "Relative coordinates" on the SVG export options... I suspect Cricut's software may have issues with hierarchical transforms? It's just a guess though - please let us know how it goes! Matt
  20. @Hokusai - this is just absolutely incredible! What an amazing and inspiring piece!!!
  21. As I said - you deliberately used a small object which you know will go wrong. You can't claim this wasn't deliberate as it very obviously was. Showing that something you know is wrong is definitely wrong is not achieving anything in my book? It didn't help me (or anyone else already contributing to this thread) know where the problem is or show me how good CorelDraw does with something we fail at. If I wanted to, I could show you ways in which any other program can fail at certain functions - I do not as it is not helpful.
  22. To be fair, you did deliberately choose to use a small object there (or a low document DPI) because you know that's what provokes the incorrect behaviour. The results only look so wrong here because of the size it has been performed at. This is currently being fixed, as I mentioned many times before.
  23. I've just unhidden it for you
×

Important Information

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.