Megnusin

Another instance where holding down the spacebar gets in the way is whenever the attribute you're changing is entered in a text field, e.g., trying on fonts by hovering over a font in the drop-down selection menu, or if you're entering precise pixel or percentage values manually, such as for outer or inner object shadows.

Is there any update to this issue? Can it really be true that Affinity won't offer to filter out all the excessive Noto variations on MacOS?

Beautiful—thank you so much. That did the trick 🙂

I've come across a couple of threads of people asking about node snapping or node alignment. Each one has received a response promising that the feature is in the works. Is there are news on this? Or maybe I'm somehow overlooking a feature that's already implemented? snap align.mov

One might also expect a discussion board put in place with the assumed overall goal of curating and streamlining relevant information to aid productivity for both users and developers to not have an undue emphasis on procedure and other bureaucratic cliches to the detriment of that goal. When one is confronted by a behavioral correction indicating a policy that runs counter to that expectation, however, common sense would dictate that one reevaluates one's assumptions. Fortunately, it's already been established that there's not actually a policy preventing a thread that started as a question of general support from turning into a feature discussion. That's also in accordance with my own experience here. I've seen plenty of threads follow that trajectory, some of which were moved into a more relevant category by a moderator when it was warranted. Keeping the number of threads per distinct topic to a minimum is a perfectly valid way to pursue collecting feedback, not only by easing the submission process, but also by maintaining a focused and streamlined environment in which to do so. Github Issues is a good example of this. The fact that this forum caters to users seeking general support as well doesn't automatically mean that can't be applied. Apparently users are not required to spend time on parallel searches, on creating parallel threads, or on correcting and herding other users around. I think it's almost amusing the degree to which it's taken as common sense by some that doing so would be the only sensible way to manage feedback.

@R C-R Thank you. I appreciate the consideration and the clarification of what's allowed. @Old Bruce I'm not sure what your point is. I thought I made it clear I wasn't going to continue that discussion either, but I do think I'm entitled to respond to accusations leveled against me by someone on their way out. In case you missed it:

You and I have agreed to the same guidelines when signing up. I can't find anything in the guidelines that forbid expressing feedback in a thread on a relevant topic outside the feedback category. Quite frankly, I think bringing up the costs of the Affinity applications as an argument was specious if not outright condescending. If my attempt to point out the absurdity in that as well as the prior point in a colorful way wasn't well received, then I apologize for that. You have a pleasant evening as well.

I hope you're not seriously telling me you have the required access and insight to have made an analysis which concluded there are observable cost savings associated with keeping separate forum categories for questions and feature feedback, specifically implemented in such a way that happens to have the effect of making it time-consuming and difficult for users to submit actual feedback by requiring them to 1) search for an issue; 2) conclude the issue warrants a request or feedback; 3) move to a different category; 4) perform the same search again, this time making sure it is exhaustive; 4) conclude there is not already a thread on the same topic; and 5) post a new thread, this of course after the user has already familiarized themselves with this procedure, rather than a) letting a moderator move a thread that originated as a question but which upon yielding the conclusion that a certain feature would solve the given problem turned into a rallying point for support for such feature and general feedback surrounding the problem; or b) not worrying about threads containing both questions, feedback, and suggestions in the first place.

Assuming user feedback and suggestions are welcome and encouraged here, it concerns me that such a questionable procedural chicane might give a person the wrong impression.

I'm just going to voice my support for a freehand or lasso objection selection tool in AD. Objects you want to select aren't always neatly concentrated for easy encompassment within a rectangle.

Yeah, thank you for chipping in, @Old Bruce, but I wouldn't really consider switching to the pen tool as a continuation of a brush curve.

Any updates on this feature?

Seven years, not three. I wouldn't hold my breath or spend my time trying to convince the regulars who frequent the boards.

I have to agree with the request for more flexibility in grouping. I use groups to tidy up layers and to divide them based on the distinct effects they achieve or the distinct areas they modify. I also use groups as a way to toggle between effect mockups applied to one underlying image, instead of having multiple copies of the same image in multiple AP project files, one for each slightly different effect. This is also the case for grouping adjustment layers with vector layers used entirely as adjustments, e.g., rectangles with opacity gradients.

And once you've learned that, it's not an issue. Getting there just requires stepping around the ambiguity. This post is just feedback on that tiny journey and a suggestion on how to mitigate it, arguably not ideal, arguably not required.