arcador

Hello, I don't think we will see anything similar anytime soon from any company. I work in web development for almost a decade now. Even with my limited experience (compared to some veterans from 20y+) I don't see any reliable way to create a webpage using such program, and it to work on the multitude of browsers and screen types. Unless it's a very simple page, with no functionality whatsoever, but then you won't need a program like that. However, there are some web builders like wix.com which do most of the job you would otherwise need developers to do. They take care of a ton bs, but they tie you up with them. In the distant past, when I studied HTML, a simple notepad and ftp would suffice to create a website, and there wasn't anything much beyond that. Now, well... only to setup the development environment may take a day. With all the possibilities the modern web allows, the complexity has risen fiftyfold, and it's still going. For each thing that gets simplified, ten others emerge. Also, companies like Google are in position to force certain direction to the whole web development, some of which do help, in general, but increase the complexity further.

Yes, use the beta only for low-stakes work or hobbies, or experiments. A long time ago when I started using various software to earn, I learned that the hard way. From LibreOffice (back then OpenOffice), through various other open source tools, and even now the Office 365 (which proudly invites you to opt for beta versions). Everything which is not stable is usually not stable. Maybe it will be stable for 99% of the time, but the one 1% it will not, will be the exact time you're racing for a deadline to make final final final changes. Save your sanity - use the stable for work stuff.

I have a similar when working with several open files, even if I don't use the files, and even in idle. For me, a strange workaround was to shift through the files (clicking their titles), and then the CPU load dropped to 0. It happened with photos, and with .ai files. I assume it's a tough one to detect and reproduce on their end, as it might be related to a combination of hardware and software.

I've had similar case with 5 open image files (described here: Maybe it's connected to hardware as well? I have nothing connected, using Thinkpad T470s. I have bit locker encryption turned on and having file history turned on. I have no idea if those are related. I'm always working on local memory.

Update: It seems the filesize is big only when I keep the layers as vector. If I rasterize them, the size drops dramatically.

Hello, Affinity Designer 1.6.0.89 question/issue I'm working on some files, and noticed they get quite big in size. While this is ok, many of them contain a few images (11 mb each), but the end size of the file is 350 mb. The DPI is normal (300), size is 300:90 mm (it's a print file). (in pixels it's 3566,9 px:1063 px) If I remove the images and save (only vectors remain), the size is a 2-3 mb. I have applied several Fx to the images, but overall nothing too much. I have under 10 layers. I haven't saved history. So my question is, is the AD file normal to be 350 mb, or there is a bug? (if a bug is suspect, I can attach the work file to a support member).

Thank you guys! Will try out. Edit: tested it out. Imported .abr, set up some random changes on each application, and it seems to be working pretty well!

Hello, I am using AD and am wondering, is there a way to import a image brush which usually uses different patterns in a random way? A good example I've seen in photoshop is the hearts or butterfly brush which creates a simple butterfly in each application, and it has several varieties. In my use case I use it to create background pattern effect on some promotional flyers. This brush really helps speed the process. An image from the net to give an example: https://media.myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/schemat/122.png Best regards, Veso