Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Ok, I've read through the thread and watched videos. A pretty tedious process. I can see that perhaps some of the reasons for requesting snapping might not convince you. However, the key takeaway is 1) the coordinates of a handle affects the shape of a bezier curve (doh!), 2) there is currently no way to set the exact coordinates of said curve handles. Is that a correct conclusion or not? Yay or nay? (I don't have Affinity Designers so I can't answer this myself).
  2. That's great, and I think recent posts have acknowledged that this is going to be implemented in Designer 1.7, but user "lase" was questioning the process rather than the result, and making suggestions for the forums and feature feedback. I guess it's just a worry that a requested capability seems to have been argued against for so long, one that a perhaps small number of users regard as "essential" rather than just "nice to have". I'd fully understand the argument that "we have prioritised other features in our development budget" but to argue that it's not a valid capability is a bit confounding (unless I'm completely missing something here...)
  3. Hello Ben, I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying, that it doesn't matter where the handle endpoints are, the curves will remain exactly the same shape as long as they're on the same angles? Are you suggesting it doesn't affect the shape of a curve at all if a handle is 1 mm away from the node or 1 kilometre? IF that's the case there's something intrinsically different about Affinity I don't understand, because in every other vector program I've used (since 1985) the position of the handles defines the shape of the curve. And if something defines the shape of a curve, you should be able to position it exactly, either by snapping or entering coordinates. Would I be correct in thinking that the x/y coordinates of all handles is stored in the file? This must be the case, because they don't change position every time the file is opened. And if they have stored coordinates, then what possible argument could there be for not being able to change those coordinates to the values that the user desires? One other point, if I'm running the corner grocery store and my best customers ask me to stock "Vegemite" as well as "Marmite" I don't query their "usage case", I just get it in stock as quick as I can. If you're American you might not get that analogy, but that in itself could be an enlightening confusion. Cheers, Andy Q
  4. Spanking. Looking forward to it and definitely buy one licence for some proper evaluation. Not sure how an additional feature can be considered "limiting" though - if snapping is turned off you can place the handles willy-nilly in a freeform fashion, if snapping is on then you can have exact control. Just need a checkbox somewhere (personally, I'd never have it unchecked! - if I have snapping "on" I expect both vertices and handles to snap). Thanks.
  5. I don't use Designer after I spent some trial with the trial version, although I thought it looked promising, super-easy to learn and certainly affordable. I still get email updates of posts to this forum, as I figured if this one feature were added I'd get a copy or two. The fact that its critical nature is even questioned makes me deeply suspicious of the programs design philosophy. I've just finished some logo jobs for which precise snapping is an absolute necessity, and which will pay for a few years of Adobe CC subscriptions. I just don't understand what the problem with this is - if the data for the handle position is stored in the file, we should at least be able to edit that data numerically, and surely adding an ability for optional snapping to grid is a no-brainer. If it wasn't required why do other applications allow it? I feel daft having to argue a case for this; it's like trying to explain to my children why I have to work for a living rather than stay at home playing Lego with them. If I wasn't concerned with precision, speed and efficiency I'd use a pencil and paper.
  6. I'm one of those Adobe CC users who are keeping an eye on Affinity, waiting for a time when we it might be possible to switch over. Just chiming in with a "hell yeah - need full TGA support!" request (and making a mental note to check all the other available import/export options!)
  7. I've just gotten back from holidays and have been checking out all the commentary on this topic. I don't have Affinity Designer, as my evaluation period expired. I didn't buy a copy simply because of this one lacking feature, the snapping of handles to grid (or grid-lines/intersections). I'm not sure how you could argue against having this ability. I can understand usage cases where you might not want handles snapping to grid, but I feel this is easily dealt with by having a simple checkbox somewhere on the interface for "snap handles enabled/disabled". In almost all cases in my work I do want the precision of snapping. This is the default behaviour in CorelDraw and Illustrator, so I'm surely not alone in this opinion. The key reason is that you can create specific curvatures that can be easily replicated, especially useful for type, logo or pattern design, diagrams/flowcharts and other non-freestyle drawing applications. By using measurements rather than doing things by eye you can draw the same matching curve shapes much faster, without the need to constantly zoom in to adjust "by eye" (especially important on small laptop screens). You can calculate how to create the same curvatures at different scales because you're just scaling up the relative distances. You can also draw inverse shapes that exactly match the perimeter of another shape. You can confidently create many separate drawing files (e.g. for a family of icons or diagram elements) knowing that curvature shapes will match even though you're not seeing them at the same time. Surely the advantage of using a computer for drawing is the ability to create with total mathematical precision, replicate elements, define exact ratios, fit things perfectly, work faster? I understand that many people are just doing the equivalent of freehand illustration, but that's no reason not to cater to users with a more technical drawing requirements.
  8. I had to go back to using the CS6 version until Adobe fixed that issue. They'd promoted removing handle snapping as a "feature". Even the stupidest software designer would have figured if you are going to remove functionality some folk might not be pleased. I would have thought the obvious thing to do was simply introduce a switch to allow choice of behaviours. I suspect the "feature change" was a cover up for a bug or new code that wasn't fully completed. Thankfully enough whining on the Adobe forums got them to change their minds...
  9. I can't ditch Adobe regardless, as I receive a lot of packaging artwork files in Illustrator format, and no application is ever going to be guaranteed to be 100% perfect in emulating AI, or even support the same plug-ins. I've also got CorelDraw, which I've been using since V1, although I rarely use it these days. I'd be happy with Corel, but I have to work with Adobe apps all day so small things like not being able to emulate Adobe's panning/zooming shortcuts and behaviours make it surprisingly painful. That's where Affinity seems to have hit the mark - it's similar enough in key respects to make it feel seamless swapping between Affinity and the Adobe tools. I just like the idea that Affinity feels faster and more responsive, but mostly that it's a perpetual licence, so if I do my logo and icon designs in Affinity I'm not held to ransom by some rental software.
  10. The handles should be able to snap in exactly the same way as the vertices, the same behaviour as supported in Adobe Illustrator or CorelDraw. Being able to place a handle point exactly can be critical for matching other elements, for creating curvatures of exactly the same proportions at different sizes, all sorts of things. Sometimes peeps may not want the handles snapping so perhaps some toggle switch to disable handle snapping would be necessary, but in 30 years of vector graphics I've never met a handle I didn't want to position exactly, either by snapping functionality or entering x,y coords.
  11. Not so much "great" as "essential". I quite liked Designer when I checked out the trial version and that's the only thing stopping me from purchasing a couple of licences. Once that functionality is available I'll definitely get a copy, as I have a unreasonably virulent hatred of Illustrator in particular, Adobe in general.
  12. Great. But where is the "Right Mouse Button" on a pen or touchscreen?
  13. Would that include being able to change at least the Y-axis direction? i.e. page measurements starting bottom left and increasing upwards. Illustrator does it one way, CorelDraw the other, both systems have advantages/disadvantages.
  14. Seconded, especially snapping to grids, guidelines and guideline intersections. This is a CRITICAL feature for me (currently evaluating Designer).
  15. Has this been implemented in some way yet? I'm currently evaluating Designer and can't figure out how to get the handles to snap to Grid, which is a pretty substantial deal-breaker. A couple of input fields to allow x/y coordinate input for currently selected nodes/handles would be nice too... (but not essential, which grid snapping certainly is!).