Tazintosh

No it's not ^^ As said, I've to export all slices —at canvas size—, each containing it's own layer content. Look closely to the screenshot I've initially posted. All slices are stacked on each other. This is what I mean --> see attached file SlicesTransform.afdesign

Sorry @carl123 but this is absolutely not what I'm talking about Perhaps I miss expressed myself, if so, sorry for my English. I'm talking about sizing the slice, not it's content (not the exported element).

Hi folks, For a long time, I'm struggling with a task that should have been straight forward and I'm loosing a lot of time on each project. I often need to export a great amont of slices (can be 50, 100…). Those slices are initially made from layers (thus linked to them, which is essential in my workflow). But I need all slices to be the size of the artboard. With Affinity, I cannot select all my slices, go to the transform panel and type in x0, y0, w1200, h1200 (see attached example) at once. I've to do this manually for everything single slice !!! The transform panel is grey out at the moment a multiple slice selection is done, which is immensely sad Would be very nice to allow such a behaviour. Thanks in advance. SlicesTransform.afdesign

My mistake, it works @R C-R. Thank you. I prefer this (pressing twice an arrow keep) as workaround.

Hi Folks, @Pšenda thanks for the suggestion, but I will not touch my screen tolerance settings, which is good as default for my needs. Again, the point is not having to switch settings all the time for simple tasks. @R C-R Sadly, it's not doing the trick. lines are still snapping to the grid.

screen tolerance?

Not true in many cases where for no "apparent" reason (could be an adjacent snap), the path jumps by 1px, sometimes by 0.5px, etc. Designing UI icons etc, is not only about straight line, sometimes, it's a more complex shape which still needs one of it's base to perfectly fit on the pixel grid. For this reason, a keyboard combination could force a 0.5px step behaviour whatever we do (move, transformation, etc.), disregarding any snap option. Edit: But in the end, a simple checkbox "Allow half pixel snapping" on the grid setting could solve all of this, without having to set end an heavy looking grid (spacing 10px, division 20px is heavy) Edit bis: setting a grid with spacing 10px, division 20px, is even not working… I still have unwanted 1px jumps because of some snaps (which by the way I need for many other reasons during the creation). Having the switch snap settings every single time depending the editing you do cannot be the right answer

I see nothing has evolved on this point (both AD & AP) I decided to switch to Sketch for my next UI projects. I dropped it when AD have been released, but I've to admit Affinity isn't matching (at all) in this domain (yes I know, Sketch has become immensely specialised on it). But still, both app are sharing a lot. Not speaking about symbols (which by opposition are crazy reliables on Sketch), this "half pixel" thingy when doing UI design is a pain in Affinity At least, Affinity Team, provide us with a shortcut to move an item by +-0.5px In Sketch, moving a line seating on the grid will instantly make it jump to the closest half pixel, thus producing a perfect 1px non antialiased line.

Hi Sean, sorry for the delay. If you we focus on the top right rectangle, you'll notice it has —no— filter effect. Still it's rasterised while it's a simple gradient with a transparent color. BTW, transparency tool produce exactly the same non expected result: a rasterised layer. Sketch however is behaving as expected for such a standard need.

Hi Sean, Do you know if it's said to be fixed on the last actual beta? Because if yes, sadly it still occurs for me

Hi folks, I'm noticing a behaviour which feels completely wrong to me (.afphoto beta file attached): • Create a basic rectangle shape and fill it black • Duplicate this shape, set it as vectorial mask of the first created rectangle, draw a gradient from 0% to 100% opacity black. Your document should preview like this: • Deactivate the mask for a moment and set your layer opacity to 50%, the preview should look like this: • Activate back the mask. Here is the problem to me: I see this a pale preview (0% to 25% opacity) while I should expect a preview from 0% to 50% opacity. Why the mask is double affected by the layer opacity value??? What I see: What I would expect: MaskOpacity.afphoto

I agree this issue is particularly annoying. For the moment, my only workaround is to scale up (waayyyyyy up) my shape (checking "scale with object"), then expand stroke, then scale it back down again. Edit: oups, I didn't read the topic fully… BTW D'T4ils, you can still be precise if you scale up/down the exact same amount.

Thank you Sean.

Hi Sean, Here is the file attached. I'm using macOS High Sierra 10.13.4 Edit: Please note that I just discovered the issue is reproductible with any file, at the instant I create a first slice (selecting a layer and making a slice out of it). Pages.afdesign

Hi, On Export Persona, when I toggle my layers visibility, all layers visibility toggles are starting a nice, but not funny dance Affinity - TheActivationDance.mov

Hi Sean, Precision: the gradient are rasterised is one of the color contains alpha. BasicShapesToPDF.afdesign BasicShapesToPDF.pdf

Hi, I just discovered that a lot of my recently exported PDFs were rasterised on the last Beta. More precisely: every gradients or masks present on my file will be converted as images once PDF exported (whatever the PDF export setting). The current stable version is however behaving perfectly as expected, producing vector based PDFs.

Hi folks, Thanks to Argee answer providing us with it's Affinity file, I managed to find out the issue. Here's a screenshot of the Affinity Published Print Panel: When I compared the print preview to the actual look of it's document pages, I noticed that the margin was way bigger. Obviously, if when sent to Create Booklet, Argee couldn't have the expected result since it's already "wrong?" on the generated PDF from Affinity's Print Panel. So indeed, playing with scaling/position etc. on Create Booklet could not help much. Now that I knew that the issue was not Create Booklet related: I don't know yet why, but it appears that the "Fit Type" dropdown on the Affinity Print Panel is the cause. I've not took a close look to Argee's document settings so I cannot tell if it's a bug or not, but when I choose "Fit to printable", with it's document, everything worked fine on the preview, thus on Create Booklet.

Hi Argee, I answered your three points by email, as you requested. Hope this will help us to figure out your issue and provide you great support. Just a side note about the "unfair" word. Don't you think it's also sightly unfair to call our app “not very good” or “doesn't quite get it right” when no support contact have ever been made (beside asking for a refund) and while we yet have no clue if it's Create Booklet related? We did had bugs, most probably still have some, but we do have a vast majority of insanely satisfied customers. I hope you'll consider my proposal on my email answer to send us your input document, or accept my screen sharing session for live support.

Hi Argee, I'm Édouard, I designed Create Booklet (with Affinity Designer BTW) while Christoph from TheKeptPromise programmed it. Note that if you had issues or needed help for Create Booklet, it would have been better to contact us directly so we can help, rather than trying to get some on a non Create Booklet related forum We're are “TheKeptPromise” and here to provide a good support to our customers As said, the refund will rely on Apple directly, but just keep in mind that Create Booklet can create booklets from any single app that can print with tons of options. It's a dedicated app. Cheers

Hi folks, What's the situation with this bug? It's still present on the last Designer version. This is BTW just a workaround, which is sadly not complete. As any attempts to set back pressure profile —onto the solid style— will end up with the brush texture applied again. Note that clicking the "properties…" button on the Stroke panel, keeps displaying Texture related content, even if you are in solid style. The only workaround I've found to really switch back to solid style is the following: Create a filled rectangle that will frame your buggy stroke Move it under the stroke layer Intersect the two layers Switch back the result curve from fill to stroke Open it if needed (cause the curve fill be close by the operation) Set your solid style pressure Voilà! --> but this is quite some time loss.

Ok, I've been able to find a friend's computer with Photoshop installed. It appears that those Apple's files are not anymore containing Smart Objects (they were by the past), which solve my wonders. I was also mislead by Apple's own texts on guidelines: They are talking about a "localisation" folder that in fact doesn't exist on their provided contents. In the end then, I've compared all files and Affinity Photo is importing them perfectly. Solve my fear. Still, since Apple start providing other format on UI (like Sketch files), would be nice if you push them to provide Affinity format All the best.

Hi folks, Apple contacted us because they want promotional contents from our App. To do so, they're providing (you obviously know it), AppName_AS_FeaturingAppsGames.psd, AppName_AS_FeaturingToday.psd, AppName_AS_ProductPageArt.psd, AppName_AS_SupportingImagery.psd, AppName_AS_TitleTreatment.psd Those PSD files have generally a specific structure, containing "smart objects" etc. My problem, is that I'm no longer using Photoshop. I'm done with Adobe, seriously, I don't want them to get my money, and even more, I don't want them to touch my computer anymore. So my computer is totally clean from anything related since more than a year now and I won't switch back. I knew/used for to long their apps to be able to hate almost any single parts of them. Question is: how do I satisfy Apple if I cannot open the exact structure of the file they are providing? How did you managed to provide them with —your– promotional contents? Did you used Photoshop? That's embarrassing… Would be nice if you could put pressure on Apple (you can, I cannot), so they offer more formats, ideally .affinity. Else, please make your import of PSD files more efficient Thanks for your time, I would love earring back from you.

Hey Generic Patriot, Thanks for the video. Your process is interesting, but finally, it validates what I was afraid of. In your explanation/video, you are considering your mask as good by default, and then, you apply your effect (dodge or whatever) to the result masked image. What we are talking about is totally different: Applying dogding, burning, level, curve, etc. directly on the mask is all about refining it (the mask), and nothing else. The HUGE benefit of working directly on the mask is that you see in live, how it behave on your creation as you edit it. Let say your mask has slight grey areas. Those area will act as partially transparent on the masked image right? In your example, you can over paint whatever you want, in whatever blending mode, you'll still get those areas partially transparent. This is exactly not what we want. We want to be able to fix those areas, which can be defects on the mask. And to do so, you may want the doge / burn depending the need, specific areas of your mask to make it perfect. Starting at 1min. on this video I've made years ago… (was still on Photoshit), you'll exactly see the benefit I'm talking about. I'm working right into my mask, and burn it. This method provides insanely precise results when applicable. And I've endless count of case like this. At least, Photoshop logic was good on this… (the very only feature I'm missing)…

Hey Patriot, Thanks for the input, but you dare putting a "Just" in front of your multiple steps process? "rasterize to mask" will anyway produce a destructive result. Would you mind providing us a quick screen record? There are some formulations I'm missing here. Thanks in advance.