Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Hell yeah. That's the first thing I tried to do when I got these apps (it took a while to figure that I couldn't just "tear it loose" and had to select a menu option to free it). The tools should be a dockable palette like any other - but adjustable in shape to a vertical or horizontal orientation, docked at the right, left, as a tool bar or as a palette alongside others (i.e. in a tabbed arrangement). At least allow either-side docking (vertically) like Adobe CC, but preferably take the opportunity to offer greater flexibility. It may sound daft but as a right-hander with a Wacom tablet I'm more comfortable not having to swing my arm left and right but have all the tools and palettes on the same side and get to everything with minor wrist movements. It's not a major gripe; at least it can be a floating palette, but I don't understand why the limitation - if was designing the UI I'd look what competitors offered, incorporate their advantages and think of ways to improve.
  2. I'm just getting acquainted with my new Affinity software, I'm still using Illustrator/Corel for production, but I'm coming up against a lot of "where is such-and-such" issues and searching this forum for answers. Selecting by colour is pretty important, as are all sorts of other selection criteria. I wanted to add a colour to a palette and make it "global" so I can adjust colour schemes, but adding a colour swatch from an existing document means it's only linked to the source object. Hence, to make it truly "global" it needs to be linked to all objects with the same RGB/CMYK/Whatever values so that changes to the swatch are relected in the design. Without being able to select objects by their fill/stroke colour as colour values this means having to individually select all the critters....which can get out of hand. I do understand this is a great app for the price, but maybe I need to keep paying more?
  3. One quick fix for efficiency is simply to make a list of categories in a panel at the left which bring up the options for that category on the right, so you can click through them super fast rather than having to go forward and back. "Aammppaa" mentioned Reaper and Blender (2.8 presumably) as examples, and both of these applications (as with Adobe apps) use this type of system. A lot of "preference" options are things I'm changing frequently so faster access would be very helpful.
  4. I've kept using Corel because it has this functionality; I hardly ever need it but when I do it saves a shaiza-load of time. I'm doing some UI/UX design now and as part of that I'm working out some relational data structure and was thinking maybe I'd try Designer for working on a diagrammatic approach - something to use as a tool for working through ideas, but using the end result as a finished diagram to explain it all to the client and coders. I'd like to get rid of CorelDraw as well as Illustrator so anything that can be added to Designer to take over those functions is a bonus.
  5. Adding to that: there's no option to open files in floating windows by default if you have a single document open in a floating window, and open another, it is added as a tab in that window - i.e. it doesn't open as separate floating window. My thinking would be that if you have documents open in floating windows and open another document, it should be assumed that you want it floating as well (separately). I'm really missing the Photoshop "CTRL-SPACE" / "ALT-CTRL-SPACE" combination that temporarily puts you into a zoom in/out mode, which is really handy when you're working on details - you return automatically to the previously selected tool after your zoom operation. Affinity has already implemented the corresponding "SPACEBAR = temporary pan-viewport" operation, so it's weird that they didn't emulate the zooming counterpart, as the two functions work together to allow fast navigation without having to switch tools.
  6. 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).
  7. 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...)
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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!)
  12. 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.
  13. 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...
  14. 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.
  15. 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.