j.strackbein

ok, sorry then I have missunderstood you

how can I missunderstand that video.. in the video everything is smooth without any lag while zooming and moving around, I have 2000+ layers and I experience a clear lag and no boost..nothing. Its not the question that it is not a great piece of software, I love it, I was just wondering why I can not see any difference. 10 times faster was just a number, could be any factor, but there is no visible improvment at all. Benchmark is telling the same story. If it is faster with 600.000 layers, it should be warp speed with <10.000.. or ? Do you think I have to add another 100.000 or more before I notice something? sounds not logical to me

I haven't looked into Publisher yet. I have done the benchmark test with no document open as suggested. There is no major difference between the two version on my machine or the benchmark is wrong (and therefore useless) The promo video 4 weeks ago showing the beta performance boost with 600.000 layers was very very promising, but if I can not see any difference with 2000 layers, I guess it will not getting better if I add another 598.000 I would think it is normal daily usage to add thousand of layers and zooming in and out while working, I would not agree that this is a particular or very special case.

this is not an option, its on MacOS not Windows..

Why is the benchmark only available in Photo and not in Designer? And is there any possibility to see the numbers of layers, elements.. (meta infos) about a file? Running the benchmark several times, some of the values differ +-10%, specially the raster (multi GPU) and combined (multiple GPUs) values. I have closed all other programs during the test, only Photo was open. As you can see there is no difference between 1.9.7 and 1.10.0, some values are even higher in 1.9 (in certains runs). I could provide you with a link to the file which I have used for the testing (via pm), but even if is faster on your machine it will not explain why there is no difference on my machine.. do you have any testfiles which I could run? For me it feels like just seeing the splash screen from 1.10 but underneath is still 1.9...

no problem But I do not have help>benchmark in Designer 1.10 nor in 1.9, I have this menue item just in Photo..

of course Cheers Joerg

running Desinger on an 8-core I9 MacBookPro, 64GB, 8GB graphic card, MacOS 10.15.7 having a document with few thousand (1000-2000?) objects so far, I am sad to say I personaly can not see that the rendering while zooming in/out is 10x faster in version 1.10.. I mean still a great piece of software, no doubt. first video is 1.9.3, second same file on 1.10.0 ad_1.9.3.mp4 ad_1.10.0.mp4

You are welcome, looking forward to the next update. best Joerg

Thanks Sean, best wishes Joerg

yep, you are right, I first thought is the distance to the inner border, but without the arrow head the problem disapears..

this is only happeing to text, other objects are fine!

I run Designer 1.9.0 on 10.15.7 both objects on one layer? enlarge the path, place it closer to the inner border of the square. I can reproduce it anytime example is attacched Joerg example.afdesign

I realy like the contour tool. Great new feature! Thanks for it. But it seems it could need some more debugging If I use the contour tool on text its interacting with the size of my art board. 1) open new doc and create art board 2) type some text 3) use contour tool on the text and decrease contour 4) use the art board tool and resize art board..

I noticed that while I was creating lots of icons, all boxes or circles are copies of each other, exact same size, just the content is changing, and after exporting them, some of them do not have the same aspect ratio then others (and no, I did not squeze them by mistake ), I can reproduce this on any new blank document 1) I draw a perfect simple square with a border 2) put it on a new layer 3) select object, export as "selection with background", in my example 500px by 500px 4) draw something inside the square, like a path 5) select both objects, export again as "selection with background" ... I will not not be able to export it as 500px by 500px anymore, one side will be smaller, in my example I "lose" 21px Joerg

Yes, hooray to the forums and the people willing to help others. I will try to return the favour as soon as I find time to answer some of the questions. Until then I try to convince everbody to use the Affinity apps, guess today I "sold" three copies

Great, 1000 thanks for your answer! Life can be so easy if you know which button you have to press

Hi all, I need to do graphics containg lots of chemical ions, eg. CO3(2-), PO4(3-), but whatever I try it is not possible to subscript/superscript the digits and the ion charges correct. I can subscript the "3" in CO3 and superscript the "2" in "2-" but then the "-" will stay in normal postion, although the panel is showing that it is superscripted. Or the "3" stays in normal postion, although the panel is showing subscripted. This behavior is font dependent. With some fonts its working, with some not. I can not use the fonts I want or which are working, epesicaly in all other programms its working fine, eg. Indesign is not showing this. And we are talking about standards fonts, not some exotics. So what is going on or what am I doing wrong? cheers Joerg

@Carl: thanx!!!

.. good that we have talked about it I never used this slider in the snapping studio so far, which is called "Bildschirmtolleranz" in German, guess it is "screen tolerance" in english (in German maybe a bit misleading name..) this is increasing the "snapping force" I was complaining about.. "oh, those stupid users...." haha.. MEA CULPA

First, thanks a lot for all your great apps!!! I have also a problem with this new feature. It definitely depends on the zoom level and the speed of moving the guide if I am able to find the snapping point, a lot of times I just miss it now because I am too fast. The "snapping force" is not strong enough, when you move too fast and you have zoomed in a lot, you just move over the point and it will NOT snap. Of course it would snap and the position would be accurate, that is not the problem, I just miss it... I can not understand why you would say, that users do not understand the technique or we do not use the tools correctly? Maybe different people use tools just in different ways? I am dragging out a guide and move it over an object, using the settings from the snapping studio. What is wrong with that? I was able to place the guides without any problems in versions <1.7, now I have to move up and down a lot of times, its try and error for me... The handles have been at least a good visible hint where the snapping is going to react. For me it was not redundant as you said, I lost some comfort. Why not make it available as an option again? Or making an option to increase the "snapping force" ?