duckrabbit

Amazing resource!

Those dastardly scheming New Document dialogs! 🕵️‍♂️ …Before you know it, they'll take over the world 😉 Thx for all your efforts! The new updates are amazing! 👏👏👏 🎉🎉🎉

Creation of Styles (with same stroke/fill colour) still doesn't work Is *this* bug 😉👇 https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/tags/afd-3305/

Hey, I feel this topic is filed in the wrong place, as it is a system agnostic bug!

Also this was on Mac, so apparently it is system agnostic This is also quite essential to my job as an illustrator. I'd be glad if there was a Beta version w/out this bug. Thx

See more details in this previous post: Can't create new styles in AD 1.8 Tested it in AD 1.8.4, and when you create a stroke style that only differs in "stroke pressure profile", a new style can't be created. This is problematic as professional digital "inking" of images depends upon this feature. PLEASE solve this or find a useful workaround (eg a hack in prefs docs, so these stroke pressure profile styles can exist & be used)

Since last update (1.8.4) this problem is *still* not solved ☹️ PLEASE solve this! It is absolutely necessary to use stroke styles in a professional setting!

Same here! Glad the devs are looking into it… this should be put in the FAQ section. Is there any other workaround other than the 99% opacity trick? Is there a way to change the opacity settings in the exported file? (.afstyles file) … and then re-import it? I really need this to work as it costs me a lot of time & clicks.

Confirmed same issue in APub. (just tested it) Any other workaround possible? Is it possible to change the opacity percentage in the prefs file? Any ideas are welcome!

Same here. AD 1.8.3 on MacOS 10.15.4 (Catalina) This is clearly a bug! Style panel clearly doesn't work as it did (before). When adding a new style close to an existing style (only difference: pressure) it doesn't register, and no style gets added. I need to build a "Style Library" of inking lines with different pressure profiles, and am (now) unable to. Before, I was able to choose the ink line (with unique profile) quickly through the styles panel (one click, among named styles), then (only if needed) tweak the stroke width a little afterwards. Now I need to select the right (unnamed) profile in the stroke panel, often needing to scroll down, and/or tweak this, THEN tweak the stroke width. Which is much more laborious, and less uniform. Need this for my comic work. Is there a way to unblock this behaviour? Or a different workaround than the 100%-99%-98%-97%-… method above? (I need 20+ different line style profiles, so it starts to show eventually!) Another workaround would be to create the inking line library seperately… then import it… but I don't know how/where (manually? in AffPub?…)

As a 20yr professional working in print (AND online) “pro” starts or ends at the printer’s compliance. Whenever the printer says there’s a problem, or the final printed result is different from what you expected... Boom... You lose money, time, jobs etc. Since APub, the Affinity suite is standards compliant (printable pdfs, export alternatives that are respected by the industry, and possibility of opening/exporting Adobe files. All else is subjective. And by these standards, Adobe CS 1 and 1.5 were not professional yet when they came out. (Because of ID’s bugs at the time.)

No "tribal" reasoning here… I have worked with Adobe Software since always, and always *have* preferred the InDesign UI over QXP (as a matter of aesthetics over power). I have however *always* criticised the monopolist position of *any* software company, and the Adobe monopoly is a fact. Any monopolist software has always chosen status quo & stagnation over pushing boundaries. I know some of this is perception (as nobody counts the non-monopolist status quo because they lose in the long run too), but I sense a misplaced disdain for what Affinity is actually capable of. I have (since APub's anouncement several years ago) tried to decouple myself from the Adobe workspace for 3 specific reasons: Their subscription model (and no guarantee they won't fix/manipulate prices) that was just too steep Their not even trying to solve *ancient* bugs with an impact on real world applications Their politics in handling Apple (as much Apple's fault, I know!) concerning their fullscreen compatibility, 64-bit handling, updates, Flash etc… which made me fear there might suddenly arrive a "break" between Apple (my hardware) and Adobe (my software) Since APub, I *can* go Adobe-free (and am doing it!). Professionally. NO other set of tools let me do this with confidence! AS OF THIS YEAR I strictly work in Affinity tools *professionally*, even if I have to take some precautions (not promising stuff I could do in Adobe to clients who don't care how I did it, eg) And concerning the insights into software development, *please* get some humility, because not all programmers/coders are like *you*, and not all projects resemble *your* projects. When asking the question "Why don't they…?" it is not always "Because they choose to (annoy people like me)". Sometimes it's just because there is something else at play. (reread my posts above) Otherwise you end up like QXP, who wanted to rewrite their codebase, just kept on adding resources and people, and came out on the other side with a huge bloated, expensive tool nobody wanted anymore. I for one can't wait for a Post Mortem once Affinity becomes a wellknown Adobe alternative, in which all these choices get explained. But then that's my weird kind of interest… Warp tools aren't the stuff that separates the pro tool from the amateur tool. There are amateur tools that have warp options. Being confident about the output, so you can make sound promises and predictions to your clients (and have no sudden ripping issues with your print shop or printer) *is*.

Actually it *is* meaningful, because at the level I sometimes have/choose to work, (extremely large files, in dpi, in Mb/Gb/Tb, in number of layers, pixels or meters, …) when two programs do the same stuff in *slightly* different ways, means that to be certain of a result, I have to note *every* step in detail. Whether I rasterise and transform in AI, or rasterise and transform in PS, or transform, THEN rasterise in either, or export to PDF, then open in AI to rasterise,… all these have extremely different results (quality-wise, in how color is managed, precision-wise,…) These switches might seem anodine, but can have serious consequences when ad campaigns are worked out, and several sizes/formats co-exist. Even their swatches aren't truly compatible (as of CS6/CC1 at least…) What is even more frustrating (and I'm glad Affinity has decided to solve this once and for all) is the abhorrent "file recognition" between the Adobe apps. If you lose the extension to a file, PS can't recognise it, when even Apple's Preview can. If you open an Adobe Prefs file or Swatches file, PS just shrugs, AI opens them (when they should be able to recognise them as swatches and load them as a swatch library), and AI still can't make up its mind on what the difference is between PDF or AI files… So much for integration between their apps. I risk sounding like a ranting grumpy old man here, but these things are extremely important to me, as it directly impacts the way I work. Every time I have to switch between apps, I have to save (which takes time & space), re-open in another app, then re-save (which takes time & space), then re-open in the original app, or (in InDesign) use the clunky "Edit in…/Edit original…" context menu. If I don't keep my full attention on what I'm doing, work gets lost, results differ oh so slightly, and non-destructive workflows become destructive workflows. Ummm… nope… Mesh (as it is implemented in AI) is horribly imprecise, and has a clunky/murky UI (just try to grab those handles, or try to fathom what each handle actually does) The "Warp" functions, are simple Meshes with concrete numbered inputs (and as such give the necessary control). "how they want" it is not (yet). I too would like AD to aim higher. Not just "emulate" what AI can do (although some functions are sorely missed at the moment), but go its own way, adding the features that matter most to Affinity users. eg the Infinite Zoom, or the way the Export Persona works, or how AD doesn't imitate the clipping path nonsense from AI, and lets you "paste inside", or the integration with AP and APub… They are *already* moving beyond what AI is… or ever *will* be… As to what market Affinity is actually targetting… it *is* the Pro-end segment. At a price that may be approachable to amateurs. Let's compare this to PS, that always *was* Pro-end (in scope AND in price), but was so widely pirated it became the de facto tool to make lousy image manipulations and became a verb (as in "I photoshopped Donald Trump's head onto Barney the Dinosaur's body"). So much for "pro" tools. Now what if PS were actually sold at a price similar to AP's… would it be less "professional"? Actually, APub (on my older iMac AND my new MacBook Pro) actually is *faster* than InDesign on a similar set-up, for similar tasks. "Stripped down" is because it doesn't have all those bloated features, and makes a lot of features more context-dependent. You pride yourself on an employer that makes an Adobe CC subscription possible. I wonder if you'd be more at ease or less at ease when software (AND hardware) costs are counted in "colleagues"… When working solo, software costs weigh. When working in a large studio, software costs weigh heavily. Affinity software can pride themselves on the sobriquet "Pro", once it is capable of producing print-ready files (which it can), and is compatible with regularly used file formats (which it is). Low prices are actually a boon when it comes to wanting to buy an app professionally. It's a pity companies have defaulted to (expensive) PR presentations when it comes to buying/approving software, instead of reading/consulting trade journalists (as they too were bought by marketing firms & lobbyists) I hope Affinity might change some of this "bottom up", instead of becoming the next QXP or Adobe, (spending more on PR & training than on actually improving their product). In the meantime, I hope, Jowday, that you don't have to start over on your own, and have to shell the subscription fees every month. Serif has chosen to break the "Holy Rule" of picking as large a price as the industry has decided it can/will pay. And they should be applauded for it. Pick just about any type of software (spreadsheets, or accountancy, or timelines,…) and you'll notice that app #1 asks whatever they want, then app #2 through #9 ask about the same sum of money (wether they're a one-man company, or a firm of hundreds). It's actually a scam, unless all these apps or services are worth exactly the same. They just want to avoid being "too cheap" or "too expensive". Kudos to Serif for choosing the high road. It certainly attracted my attention, and when they add the stuff on their roadmap, Adobe will have to review their own pricing. Chances are, though, they have (in the meantime) built such an empire based around their brand (ads, PR, licensing deals, certified training courses, sponsored user meetings, sales reps, app development teams, research teams, etc…). I wonder what'll happen when Adobe has to lower the price of their flagship assets to 1/8th their former prices. (or go out of business) Back to the reason for this thread, however, it is not the whistles & bells that make the value of an app, but its reliability. When I need a whistle or bell (once in a blue moon), and there's a cheap app that offers this service, and I can import the result back into my main (print-ready) app, that is enough for me. I do not want an AI or PS or InD clone, that falls short on reliability. I want a reliable app, that regularly adds features that make it easier t work with. At a price I can live with. Adobe's apps aren't "more" professional. They just have a dominant position in the market, just as "Word" or "Windows" or "IE" weren't more "professional".

Exactly this I am doubting somewhat though. While most libraries (EXIF etc) are quite basic fodder for a company of Serif's experience, I am convinced their way of handling things (different from Adobe, who adapted tons of proprietary software into one ecosystem), is what made it *easier* (not harder) to make an iOS/Mac/Win version in parallell. But as it comes to vector transformations, contrary to pixel warping (which AP can already do better than PS imho), vector warping is often a complicated weighing of performance/speed, upper vector limit, filesize, limits etc… Even 500 pound gorilla AI still has some weird bugs in its essential vector warping tools. (only visible when working on extremely fine detail) Mainly because AI's vectors are much more granular than you'd think (ie not as precise) Also, contrary to the Adobe way, they want/need the exact same vector handling in all their apps. Who has manipulated vectors in PS or Acrobat knows how clunky they work/react even in extremely simple files. No library can help you with this. While having more dev's at your disposal is no guarantee (see QXP's debacle, or read the excellent The Mythical Man Month), but having a large team *does* let you focus on two things at once! Serif has chosen to not pool their efforts into its vectorwarping (yet! Or matbe they're on it, but have bugs to fry that were unforeseen) But it is not the only "necessary" feature they are lacking. Datamerge, eg, is to many print publishers as essential in APub, as vectorwarp is to digital vector users. I have ceased judging software companies for their internal decisions (even though Duke Nukem took a looooong ass time) because there is a reason software isn't devolped by voting in a democratic election. I just have to add that —compared to almost any large-ish company— Serif scores low on expectation management, but extremely high on delivery. But there are worse cases (eg Duke Nukem, or how Adobe managed Flash & Acrobat)

It *looks* like a lame excuse but it isn’t. I for one was *seriously* hesitating for more than two years about switching to an Affinity-based workflow, not because of some feature it lacked from their Adobe counterparts, but because APub *still* wasn’t out yet, and AD and AP had serious « bleed » probs (which messes with the entire professional print process) Then they released APub. It was (from day ONE!) printready, while all the bleed probs were resolved, stable, fast, and intègratèd nicely with AD and AP. Contrary to most people here, I was an early adopter of the first versions of InDesign. Their version 0.5, then 1.0, or 2.0, and made my first large school project in it. It was being touted as the QXP killer, because Adobe had PS and AI (nothing more!) And already they were hideously expensive compared to AD & AP today. Well, InDesign 2.0 was unstable, buggy, had still a *lot* of problems integrating PS and AI files. And its main redeeming factor was its UI that felt fresh and modern. But it was far from professional. I lost my work through a corrupted file, and had to redo 50 pages of custom lay-out in QXP. When I tried again later (the UI had me sold), I couldn’t get my files to print professionally. I survived, because I was only a student, so pressure was relative, and doing allnighters or bulshitting your teachers to explain for missed deadlines comes with that territory, I guess. Yet InDesign blew QXP out of the water only two years later. But some printshops and professionals held out for yet another 10 (TEN!) years, because trusting Adobe too soon (or just taking on a large “no-frills” project, which was QXP’s forte in those days) may have cost them an important client, a job, an expensive print run, or just plain old cash. Serif’s experience in the graphic/dev biz is relative. Most coders they hired to pull this off either are too young to have known those days consciously, or if they aren’t that young, well, chances are they aren’t the best coders for the job (who can keep updating their code skills every year to switch to the latest fad?) What they exude however, is pure old *wisdom*. They have the serenity to accept the things they cannot change (ie they can’t please everyone from the start), courage to change the things they can (ie they can make sure their apps work as advertised), and wisdom to know the difference (eyes on the prize). Yes, their communication could be better attuned, but at the moment, and after having them seen deliver with APub, I’m glad they let their apps do the talking. AD will get better. AP will get better. APub will get better. But the three of them together are *already* awesome. At *LESS* than the price of *one* app of their mainstream competition. Just to put things in perspective: a Blast from the past in 2003 Now let’s adjust that for inflation… hmmmm…