hperticarati

Yes!!! It's finally working again! Thanks to the developers <3 It's on beta 1.7.0.11, go try it out!

I think that probably all main issues with this were mentioned in the previous comments Usually, the align and distribute tools are used 100% of the time to perform these tasks. However, they are not enough and are not fail-proof, because sometimes you need to know one artboard position to place the other one. Also, it does not guarantee that the first selected artboard is placed precisely over an "entire pixel". And well, we are not asking anything absurd. This is simply how all other graphic design software work, so if the new feature doesn't introduce any significant benefits with it and causes trouble, I think it should be reconsidered. Anyway, the argument of having the 0,0 coordinates on the ruler does not make much sense: - if I select the artboard, the coordinates on the ruler should provide relevant information about where the artboard is. If the values displayed are 0,0, it's irrelevant because the reference is the artboard itself. - Now, if you select an object INSIDE the artboard, then its position should be relative to the artboard, and the rulers should display the 0,0 coordinates based on the artboard origin. - Anyway, since the current implementation has different behaviors for objects and artboards in the canvas, it seems a not well-thought feature.

I know I mentioned different issues that stray from this topic, but anyway, having a position for each artboard in an infinite canvas (as we had in 1.6) would at least make it possible to manually working around each issue during my workflow, right?

I'm not sure about the position not meaning anything. I work with app design and I use to have many artboards in a single file. I use a lot the artboard position to arrange my artboards, separate them, and prepare them to export. If you try to export a 100x100px artboard that is placed on position 10,5px on the global canvas, Affinity designer will export this artboard adding an extra and transparent pixel, so the artboard will be 100x101px. and with some terrible antialiasing. So I also use the artboard position to fix this issue. Also, I use the position to calculate how much I should move other artboards to place them correctly on the file. So in my opinion, having a global absolute value to place the artboards is extremely useful, for many reasons.

Exactly! And there is more to it, @Ben 1) Let's say, artboard A is X:10 and Y:10, and artboard B is X:0 and Y:0. 2) When I select artboard A, and then artboard B, the properties panel will first display X:0 Y:0, and then X:-10 Y:-10 I assume that the final "bounding box" of the artboards selected is taking into consideration the initial X and Y values relative to the artboard.

I'm referring to the actual artboard position (see attached images) The rectangle has an X value of 7667 px. It is aligned with the artboard below, which should display the same value. However, the artboard coordinates being displayed are X:0 and Y:0

I have a file imported from Affinity 1.6. When selecting an artboard, instead of displaying its correct location on the infinite canvas, which would be X:5459 px and Y: 3632 px, it displays X:0px and Y:0px.

When trying to place the "test - shape.afdesign" inside the "test - master file.afdesign", Affinity 1.7.0.8 crashes. After a few seconds, Mac OS displays the following dialog: My system info is also attached.

Well, what I have to say about this: - People really appear and start asking things out of the topic, and that can be annoying (I think I did it sometimes too). - But I also think we could have more participative moderators, to guide and orient the new members of the forum. - Sometimes, because of cultural and specific language characteristics, what people type here might seem sarcasm or lack of politeness. So I think that all members should try to be polite in their comments, even when they think that they were not treated with courtesy. - But most of all: if you are not in the mood to write a proper answer to a new and confused member, I think you should avoid joining the discussion because the last thing we want is to make new members feel they are not welcome. @MCFC_4Heatons This thread is specific to follow up what's coming for Affinity Designer 1.7. You are welcome to read all of @Ben's posts in this thread, where the new features are being showcased. Please try to keep suggestions and feedback on the topic (most of Designer 1.7 features are focused in vector editing), and if you have more suggestions, I recommend that you first take a look at the forum topics to see if they were already approached in some way, so you can contribute to the discussions contextually. If you don't find what you are looking for, you are welcome to create new threads, with your suggestions. I think you have plenty of material to contribute

@Hokusai I've sent emails for both Affinity and Zeplin support teams. Affinity team said that plugins are not on the roadmap right now, and Zeplin team said that they can't implement the integration with Affinity because there's not a plugin or API system. Maybe we should just create this new topic asking for a plugin system.

ok, so anyway, you agree that "Zeplin.io integration/cooperation" would be precisely inside the matters of having a plugin support, and that this would precisely attend to what we are asking for? I'm a bit confused here, because if the answer is yes, then we are all on the same page I really think that the monetization model should not be the focus of this topic.

I'll try to best clarify the need to integrate to Zeplin or other third-party solutions for development handover (at least based on my daily experiences working as a UX Designer). - Once you design a UI, you have to deliver it to developers, in a way they are able to implement the front end as closest as possible to design specifications. - Solutions like Zeplin allow you to, with a single click, upload the whole file to a system that can be accessed by many people (mainly stakeholders and developers), where they can check automatically generated specifications and exportable assets (icons in png, svg, etc), with color swatches, font styles, etc. This saves hours and maybe days of unnecessary work. - Platforms like Zeplin have a very specific purpose: allow people to review files and get assets, without the need to install and learn specialized design software (which requires buying more licenses). - I freelance for companies which usually pay for Zeplin licenses because the content hosted there is their own property, while the software I use (Affinity, Sketch) is my property. So it does not add extra costs to my budget. Now, looking at Affinity main features and roadmap, we can tell that they are more focused on illustration than on UI design. They made some effort implementing constraints and symbols, but these features are rather limited at the moment. I think that implementing something as specific as a "Zeplin" module inside Affinity Designer, with a whole new set of features, would cost some tens of thousands of dollars and would benefit only a portion of their user base. So, why not provide integration to third-party software like Zeplin, which would be far easier to handle and to give support? In my opinion, if you don't see advantages in this request, maybe you should just not endorse it, or maybe just give a better alternative. Meanwhile, the almost sole reason why I hadn't adopted Affinity Designer as my main UI design tool, is precisely because of the lack of features like these.

This happens in the Mac OS version too... @Ben Any chances the other developers that worked in these are looking at this thread? Symbols + constraints are some of the most useful features for screen designers. I was using it a lot, until some bugs started to appear and I ended up losing some hard work... Anyway, for exporting persona, I'd like to see a way that I could add different slices for the same artboard, but for one slice, I'd like that certain layers would be visible, while for the other slices I'd like that other layers were visible. So, fo example, If I designed an UI and wanted to export some screens, instead of duplicating the same artboard and showing / hiding layers in each one of those artboards to display certain panels over the screen, I could have only one screen, with different slices with those layers visibility attached to them.

lol I've missed it. +1 to it have being done!

+1 to scale and transform a node selection, the way Inkscape does