pixelworker

I never liked the look of the icons in Version 1. It looks much better now, zero issues with them. Good work.

Yes, "Move by whole pixels" is disabled. But after years of having problems with it and a couple of posts here in the forum without any real solution I thought it's a flaw in Affinity. But you might have given the solution. At least it looks like it after a short test. I will keep testing next week. Preferences > User Interface > Decimal Places This is pretty hidden and you have to think twice about what it does. I've seen this option but I never thought that this is the reason. Especially because when you have "Force pixel alignment" active, you think it's the option for that. A pixel is an atomic unit physically. It should be more prominent in the snapping options, with this connection it would be easy to understand. And default of 1 decimal place for pixel is not a good default. When you set it to 0 I get no non integer even at transformations. @ashf you should try if it solved your issue too?

Affinity works more precise as a given pixel grid in the document. That means you often get non integer value (12.4px) even with "Force pixel alignment". The result is a unsharp result, you can't show 1.4px as a sharp line. The lock to grid option"Force pixel alignment" and also View Mode as Pixel doesn't help much, it still happens. It's an absolutely fundamental need to quantise all data to a given pixel grid without any possibility do have results that are not fitting. Example are all transforms operations which results often in non integer values. Affinity, do you understand this problem and how much problem it creates for any pixel perfect design like GUI design?

That's user friendly for online activation, but can you run into trouble installing it too often? I mean like 1-2 times a month or so. Not hundrets of times. There is always the fear of doing something wrong when you install your software when some kind of heuristic blocking mechanism is involved...

Thanks a lot for your post. I was a bit too emotional because I wish it was different. Online activation is often the first step to losing control and being at the mercy of possible "bad" future product desisions. But as said, it could be way worse like with permanent online checks,which are not to to my knowlage. I think it's just a one time activation? One other suggestion is to give insights about an emergency plan in case Serife (for what every reason) can provide activation server anymore.

@ashf I think you should post it again in the current forum for Version 2. This one is archived.

That's why I still try to use Affinity but I have to get work done. Even with Version 2 there is no enhancement and I'm at a point of giving up working pixel perfect with Affinity due to accumulated frustration.

Voted. But this is not the only problem. It's happening at basic operations like adding shapes sometimes.

This is one of the main flaws. Working pixel perfect it's super difficult and frustrating in Affinity.

I have force pixel alignment on (using preset "Pixel work"). I use the pixel view in addition, but still, I often create object that have some edge at .5px. I have this problem so long that and never found a reliable way to work on a real integer pixel grid that I'm thinking to switch to Sketch or Figma. Is this program just so complicated and I don't get it or is it a technical problem?

It's a understandable but very sad solution to activate online. It could be worse with permanent online checks, which are not done to my knowlage. But even this way I'm not sure if want to follow Affinity 2.

I'm hyped about the offer and finally being able to use it on mac and pc! But since single apps still can't be used on both operating systems according to the FAQ, I'm wondering if this is archived by some online or cloud requirements (online login while using or starting) compared to single versions which have just a key to be added manually? I dislike any mandatory cloud/online requirement, hence I would think about to buy individual applications to avoid it. Thanks in advance.

No it doesn't. It doesn't look great with any setting and lower than default setting creates other problems at least in Windows

This topic is so important for me that I wanted to make a seperate request. The blue selection has 2px with and these rounded edges with an additional circle around them. What's the reason to have this second circle? I always disliked this design as it takes too much attention and doesn't look elegant. You can change the size of the this in the options (tools > tool handle size) but it's not helpful. Below "default" I get strong aliasing on the line (Windows at 100%) and it still doesn't look good. My suggestion is to add an alternative, more minimal and timeless design. - option to make the line just 1px - minimalistic edges i.e. just a simple rectangle instead of these rounded dots - no pseudo 3d look

I have 3 problems with the color picker. 1. I like that you can drag on the color field to get a color picker. But you have to assign this color to the background/foreground color in addition. I don't see a shortcut for that. That creates a lot of mouse movement. 2. You can change with "I" to the color picker. But you only can change the currently selected color (background/foreground). In MS paint there is a neat little trick. You can use either the left/right button to chose whether it's foreground or background color. Is there something like that I Affinity? 3. Is there a way to temporarily switch to the color picker? I mostly need to pick a color and after that return to my last tool. I have to keep in mind to toggle the tool back by another press of "I". Would you could temporarily toggle the tool, e.g. by keeping "I" pressed longer than 500ms, it would be a big help. Is there a way to temporarily toggle in Affinity?

Yes. Thanks for for input anyhow. But drag up+down interaction in input fiels is a lot superior to mouse wheel to change values. Also because you can combine it with a modifer key for detail adjustment. When you got used to that most input modification methods feel outdated. Especially when working hours with a UI. I like a free spinning mouse wheel for scrolling and general zoom, but for small adjustments it's straining for the finger when used a lot. And it's slower, because you need more small precise movement with the finger, compared to just dragging on a field with a fluid movement of the mouse. You have a higher resolution when changing via drag too, because you have a higher movment area with the mouse. It's like using a small fader vs. a larger one.

Thanks for the suggestion, I've already tried that. For me it's not working. I think the color of the icons make the UI easier to decode. It's just the look of the icons that could get a fresher, more timeless look.

You can drag left&right on the title of many input field to change the value of the field. But not all input fields have a label. 1. I suggest to use the whole input field as a target for the drag action, like many other programs do. This will work for all inputs and is easier than using the label. I see no clash of interaction when you take the whole field as a target for the drag action. 2. And to use up+down instead of left&right or make an option to chose your preferred way. It's much less stress for the hand and fingers to move the mouse up/down. Small left&right drag is more stressful in comparison. 3. Furthermore, add a fine modifier hotkey to make small adjustments more easy (key + drag). Currently Shift makes it even faster. I almost work exclusively with this way drag up+down on input fields to change values in other programs and I really miss it when using Affinity. It's the next iteration of changing inputs in my opinion.

I have this feel in all Affinity products. The UI elements feel a bit clunky visually. It's ok, but I never feel that I like the UI visually, it doesn't look elegant. - Selection feels bulky compared to indesign, too thick line, I don't like the round edges of the rectangle. - Toolbar icons a bit too playful - Sight pseudo 3d look of buttons

Found the reason. It's the snap options like Snap to bounding boxes, Snap to shap e key points, Snap to object geometry. This seems to override the Force pixel setting in some cases. Maybe there are even more Snap settings that override it. I'm a bit dissapointed to lose so many snap settings just to be able to work on a forced pixel grid.

New problem. As said, I have Force pixel aligment + move by whole pixel is enabled, but I still get sometimes x.5 values on the y-axis when I move a rectangle with the mouse. It's super strange that his happens just sometimes, for certain values. For example, it's showing for Y in the Transform box: 94px, 95px, 96.5px. This looks distorted, which isn't unexpected for a sub-pixel position value. But this should never happen with the settings I have. Any idea why it can moving with sub-pixel precission with these settings?

I think I got it know. I forgot to set the Align to Outside in the Stroke setting this time. Seems to work now. 🙏 I wish the slider was restricted to integer values, the width slider isn't usefull in this form. But I can enter the values directly via keyboard as a workaound.

Thanks, I did miss this option. I preferet it a lot this way. But I still have pretty much the same issue, Create a rectangle with 3 px height. Add a 1px stroke with black. I expect the result below. But the top/bottom stroke is just grayish with 1px stoke width. It's getting black at 1.9px. And all steps in between just change the color of the stroke (I guess because sub-pixels can't be rendered). ---- 1px STROKE (black) ---- 1px Fill ---- 1px STROKE (black) ----

I know the force pixel setting. But I still get so often a non integer representation of shapes. Even in Photo. I can understand that in a vector application like Designer, but I think Photo should really be about pixels. https://affinityspotlight.com/article/hi-res-iconui-design-can-be-pixel-perfect/ I see the idea to work with pt sometimes instead of pixel, but sometimes you really want to be pixel perfect. Creating a simple 1px line with a 2px border on each side is really a point of failure in Affinity Photo. For example... Create a shape in Photo and add a Stroke width. I always have to check visually what's going on on px level. I often the get a different color for the border, just because the pt setting is not fitting the px raster and is aliasing (2px instead of one displayed with a shaded color). Is someone else experience this kind of problems? I just had a project were pixel perfection was necessary and it made me almost switch to another program. Is there a way to use just px instead of pt in Photo? Super frustrating stuff.

I recently updated all my Affinity products to the latest version and I see that there is an account management build in now. Plus, I get a request to sign in when starting the application. There are certainly use cases were something like this can be helpful. But there are cases were this is just annoying. I work with confidential buisness data sometimes and I don't want to constantly check if I share or sync something unwanted or not. I switch from Adobe because I was sick of all the cloud integration and pricing model. I want to have a good, simple and modern offline application without any network acitivities. This is one main reasons why I chose Affinity. Please keep features like this always optional, let the user control the program and keep the users privacy in mind.