BofG
-
Posts
1,431 -
Joined
Posts posted by BofG
-
-
Yep, so it's not so powerful as that then. You can set the angle but that is done when you set up the grid, and it doesn't have true perspective, only axonometric projections.
-
You can sort of do that with the isometric panel, select a flat drawn object/group and then automatically fit it to one of the planes, and you can draw/edit within each plane.
I don't think there's any psudo-3d type functions. I only have Designer though so I'm unsure about what Photo has to offer.
-
Designer has isometric functionality, beyond that I don't believe there is anything else in the 3D realm.
-
You could set up a grid, that would give you more snapping options. You can also set the "nudge" distances which are the amount an element moves when you use the arrow keys. Useful if you often move things by the same amount. There's a shift modifier too so you can have two different distances set up.
-
37 minutes ago, frankster69 said:
pressing CTRL-S is a lot faster then the awkward 4-button CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-S
You must be working to some very tight deadlines
The problem is that jpeg is a lossy format, so when saving at less than 100% you are throwing some of the image data away. Multiple saves on the file degrade the image (like photocopying a photocopy over and over). Exporting means the original can be kept as the source of the save, and so avoid this exponential loss of image data.
-
8 minutes ago, Mark Freeman said:
lack of transparency as to WHY it’s not included
I can understand why, there's no answer that will satisfy everyone so it's best to keep quiet rather than "fan the flames" so to speak.
-
1 hour ago, M D P said:
No it doesn't make it easier either. I'm working on a path and the only way to select it back is through the layers panel which is painful.
I might be imagining this, but doesn't "undo" undo the de-selection and therefore re-select the path?
-
50 minutes ago, MCFC_4Heatons said:
If you have to pay a sh*t load of money to Adobe because of core missing features in Affinity then that means it's essential to a hell of a lot of people.
The fallacy of that argument is who was to blame before Affinity came along?
-
From the sounds of it Adobe is missing the essential feature of a nice responsive UI
I do get where you are coming from, I do miss some things from Illustrator but for the value proposition I'm happy to work around them.
@DJ_Jaybee take a look at InkScape for the path effects. They are very comprehensive and might serve your needs. I'd recommend setting the keyboard shortcuts to Illustrator style before you begin otherwise it's a painful experience.
-
1 hour ago, Mark Freeman said:
I get what you’re saying man, but something can still be essential even if the frequency in which it is needed is relatively low for some people
Fair to say then that it's not essential for the commercial viability of Designer, but essential for some people to be able to ditch Adobe/Corel/InkScape?
-
39 minutes ago, DJ_Jaybee said:
It's essential. We are also paying for Adobe subscriptions as essential tools like a free distort tool still isn't included.
Genuinely curious to know why you are choosing to use both? If Illustrator does everything you need and Designer doesn't, why take the pain of switching back and forth? Why even buy Designer in the first place when it lacks an essential feature for your work?
-
10 minutes ago, Dazmondo77 said:
But it's taken for granted that you can do vector distortions
Except it's not there (well except basic shear). There is a free trial available, so it's not like this is a secret that people can only discover after making the purchase.
Of course it would be a nice addition for many users, but the complaint that it's "essential" doesn't hold water. If it is truly essential then people would pay the price it demands from one of the "big" players and wouldn't be here.
I'm just happy to have something workable, easy to use and that doesn't cost hundreds of pounds a year.
-
2 hours ago, LeaS said:
What else do you need?
Really the source Affinity document or at least the tiff that you sent to the printer.
Have the printer given you specific details as to what they require from you? From your posts you seem to be guessing at the dpi etc, which is never a good way to start.
-
-
You can use arithmetic is the transform panel. So if you want to move something right by 5 feet, just type "+5" into the "x" position field.
-
2 minutes ago, MCFC_4Heatons said:
Yes, but we're talking about essential missing features
Devil's advocate here, but Serif have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. If the feature was truly essential that wouldn't have happened.
I don't know the reasons behind the lack of this particular function, but maybe it's that the business model requires some key features to be planned for the v2. There will come a point where the sales growth dips, and new revenue needs to be saught.
Probably at some point this will all go to the SaaS model, everyone seems to want the new features now, and having the paid upgrade model necessitates paced output of features.
-
You cannot directly do that from the outline effect. If you remove the effect and apply a stroke instead you can then use "expand stroke" to convert it to a shape in it's own right.
-
Do you have "scale with object" on in the stroke panel of the source document?
-
25 minutes ago, Hangman said:
but is the target market likely to be running legacy code or modern code in 2021 and if legacy code then that's surely they would have issues when viewing the iWay.ch website
I meant the banner serving company, not the people who will see the ads. These systems can be complex and are likely old, updating to support 2x images etc is probably a non trivial task.
-
3 minutes ago, Hangman said:
I'm not sure I follow the logic as to why the Banner ad specialist cannot handle "@2x"
Never underestimate the amount of legacy code there is out there! Their system is probably hard coded at those pixel dimensions.
-
I'm not sure I know enough to advise on an approach. Personally I work in sRGB and export to pdf using my printer's custom profile as the output intent.
-
22 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:
So does this mean I'm probably already working with as near to dammit as I could hope for calibrated equipment and I should just keep calm and carry on
It depends a lot on what the end use of your artwork is. For web, stick with sRGB and enjoy not having to deal with colour profiles. If it's print work then it can get complicated.
-
There's only so much you can do with that many pixels. Try making sure everything is aligned to whole pixels in your design, maybe for that small all-caps text you can substitute a pixel font.
The main issue is that your screen (and many others) are now beyond the 72ppi that web sizing is based on, so you will also be getting a result based on how your browser upscales the image. Some are better than others. If you cannot serve the 1x 2x etc then it's largely out of your hands.
-
13 minutes ago, Jkdaw said:
I don't understand the display resolution vs document resolution. If it's done the maths to show it , why can't that be the real deal?
Possibly because you need to store the result in the file at the end of it all? Which is a fixed pixel size.
Just guessing as I don't have Photo to see these wonderful effects/filters.
Can one save a file and retain Pantone spot colour information please?
in Pre-V2 Archive of Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
I guess pdf can be seen as a container when the image is raster based?
Tiff supports spot colours, not sure if Affinity can save that was as I've never tried.