Jump to content

jstnhllmn

Members
  • Content count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to alexpi in Roadmap and an Update of these Feature Requests - Blending Shapes, Shape Tool, Offset Path   
    I have designer friends that are using Illustrator, and upon showing them AF Designer, almost every one dismiss it due to the lack of Offset paths, Patterns, Blends and Gradient meshes (in that order!) 
  2. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to Chiefmonkey in Roadmap and an Update of these Feature Requests - Blending Shapes, Shape Tool, Offset Path   
    thank you @dominik
    all good... no offence taken at all... I guess this bit sums it up: "If they felt there was anything new or significative enough to add (disclose) to the discussion they would probably have done it by now."
    Blending between Shapes  -  aka transitioning/tweening... can't believe this isn't a function/feature they'd want to include... an answer to this would be greatly appreciated  Shape Creation Tool - the Boolean tools are OK  (a "Shape Tool" would be so much quicker but hey I'm letting it go  lol)  Offset Path - in AI and others this is a 2-click feature.. but hey there is a workaround... it's cumbersome UX but you get there in the end... I'm letting it go 
  3. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to JGD in Affinity Designer 1.8 New features list?   
    I'm not sure I fully agree with your assessment. They will actually see a lively back-and-forth between devs and users. Sure, it may not always be perfect, but it's leagues ahead of what happens at the competition's user forums (and here, I'll single out Adobe by name: I will never, *ever* forget that infamous Photoshop gradient thread).
    We are discussing very precise factors here, and users who don't feel affected by them will either ignore the discussion altogether, or realise those issues aren't that big of a deal anyway. Also, Affinity apps are so affordable that taking the plunge isn't that big of a risk, IMHO. Even if you never pick them up again, they cost as much as a few months of a CC subscription, and you can absolutely recoup the initial investment in no time.
    The main reasons I (and others?) am so “passionate” about the Affinity suite are, as stated earlier, because I do wish to switch to a more affordable alternative, but also because I'm trying to recoup the time investment and regain some of the credibility lost for having peddled it to no end at the very beginning of the public beta phase. And the main reason I'm not doing so anymore, nor investing in crazy workarounds without any guarantee that they will become obsolete ASAP, is the fact that I know of the sunken cost fallacy. Nuh-uh, I'm not getting caught in that rabbit hole.
    Once I realised AD did not work for me and my students in its current state I pulled out of my self-appointed duties as a full-blown tester and evangeliser, and focused on its irreconcilable structural shortcomings instead. For all the people here thinking that I'm too emotional, or passionate or whatever, I would kindly ask you to take a moment to appreciate how very rational, logical and laser-focused those decisions actually were.
    As for Serif, a company constantly propped up by none other than Apple itself, I think you worry too much about its short-term future. Our comments about the long term are aimed mostly at Serif management itself, not other users – current and potential –, and I fully believe the latter realise that and are more than able to decide for themselves if Affinity is good enough for them in its current form. There is, IMHO, plenty of time to correct course here and there, and these latest posts are absolutely a step in the right direction.
  4. Thanks
    jstnhllmn reacted to Larryh in Is Designer Persona planning to be more complex?   
    The large field Affinity Designer want to cover means less attention to the main purpose of the software, Vector Graphics SVG format
    I have view every video tutorial available, read every tutorial available and still, knowing how the software works does not provide full functionality, as it is missing half of the features other softwares have to offer to work with vector graphics
    What I suggest is very clear, to improve vector graphic tool and add new ones, currently for only-vector graphic projects (SVG format) the software is incapable to provide a stand alone work space, because of the lack of advanced features and the rudimentary vector features it currently offer

    (I work with vector graphics & SVG vector graphic format)
    Affinity Designer is good to work with raster graphics, I can´t deny that, because the software have focus on raster graphics over vector graphics
    The UI is good, I like the way the software is organizing the items in layers and the features it offer for the layer organization
    Exporting have no bugs, that is a nice thing, but still missing option for exporting, which should be improved (Importing have some bugs for SVG format, that is something they have told that they are working on to fix)

    I would recommend the software to everyone who works with raster graphics and pixels
    I would not recommend the software for anyone who works with vector graphics and SVG format,  but I have high expectations to what the software have to offer and I hope new features arrive for vector graphics and more attention is provided to that fundamental field
    (I might say, I really want to use Affinity Designer as my main stand alone software to work with vector graphics when it improves the current weaknesses of the software)
    I have posted in topics (See my profile) all the missing features and bugs I requested to add/fix/improve, you can find more information in those topics:
    https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/profile/118527-larryh/&do=content&type=forums_topic&change_section=1
  5. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to Knute5 in Distort / warp feature affinity designer   
    Macromedia Fireworks had it from the beginning in 1997. Although it took Adobe 14 years to plug into V10 that was eighteen years ago. However you want to paint it, it's a fundamental, 101 feature. I love AD in every other way. That it's take this long to implement makes me wonder if there's some foundational issue that makes it difficult for Seriph to deliver.
  6. Thanks
    jstnhllmn got a reaction from Chiefmonkey in Roadmap and an Update of these Feature Requests - Blending Shapes, Shape Tool, Offset Path   
    @haakoo
    how do you know that?
  7. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to davidlower8 in [AD] Shape Builder Tool   
    I would like to add to this debate and also request this feature. OR if not this feature then at least have the boolean tools work properly. For me, there are 4 glaringly bad issues with the current Affinity Designer set up which I will try to explain.
    1) When cutting different shapes from each other - if the shapes are quite complex, Affinity adds literally hundreds of nodes to the shape. It even does it if the shape is relatively simple. See screenshots.
    2) When trying to select these completely pointless nodes I am given a square shape selector to highlight and select. It makes it extremely fiddly if I want to delete those nodes in a confined space where I don't want to delete other nodes from other shapes.
    3) With these hundreds of nodes it makes any shape really heavy in processing power. It slows down the app significantly and in my case repeatedly crashed. Worse, however, is when you want to continue to cut out shapes from each other if one of those shapes has lots of nodes it simply refuses to work. Instead of the shapes cutting away or even adding together they both simply disappear. Affinity just can't handle it. Again in my case, it was so bad I had to manually redraw complex shapes from scratch or start over. Or on the shape with tons of nodes I had to manually delete them until Affinity was able to process the boolean command again.
    4) When using circles and the golden ration to design (as an example) the divide boolean is pretty much the only tool you can use. However, what happens is it adds hundreds of tiny spec layers that in many cases are so small they offer absolutely no relevance. The other day I was making a logo using about 10 inter lapping circles. I selected them all to divide in the hope I could simply manually add the shapes I wanted with the add boolean. However, I ended up with over 400 layers. Good luck trying to select which shape/layer goes together and good luck trying to manually select the shapes with a square (fixed) selector.
    These are my thoughts. Maybe the shape builder tool is not necessarily needed. Personally, I think it would improve Affinity and the workflow significantly. However, I am a big advocate for zero bloating of the tool. BUT the current boolean tools in my mind do not work, especially when getting into complex shapes and/or patterns. Which ultimately is what Affinity Designer should be handling.
    I love Affinity and I appreciate the work you are doing.
     





  8. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to Chiefmonkey in Roadmap and an Update of these Feature Requests - Blending Shapes, Shape Tool, Offset Path   
    lol thank you haakoo, appreciate your response... but you're right I don't like that answer lol
    Any software not listening to its users will see their users slowly disappear to solutions that do listen to them... it's just what happens 
    This is a quote of the Affinity Designer homepage:
    "Thousands of designers around the world told us how they need their graphic design app to behave. We put that knowledge at the core of Affinity Designer."
    I guess they've stopped listening
    All I'm asking for is some clear and transparent communication as to whats happening with these 3 features which have been requested from years ago... the need for them hasn't gone 
    Guess I need to hit twitter to see if that will prompt a reply... or something... anything... give me a grain of insight, anything lol
  9. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to Old Bruce in Roadmap and an Update of these Feature Requests - Blending Shapes, Shape Tool, Offset Path   
    If memory serves correctly (and I am probably wrong) Publisher was going to be released in 2015 as a beta and a finished product in 2016. Didn't happen.
     
    As it is right now those three are not available. Your best bet is to work as though they will never be available. If there is a better tool handy then use that one.
    A roadmap is not the terrain.
  10. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to Chiefmonkey in Roadmap and an Update of these Feature Requests - Blending Shapes, Shape Tool, Offset Path   
    Hello Support,
    I'm a laser cutter and crypto artist and I make things like you can see in the attached image.   
    I've purchased both Affinity Photo and Designer.
    The three main functions I need in any Vector Software are:
    Blending between Shapes e.g. from a Circle to a Square with ability to set number of steps in between  Shape Creation Tool as in AI (I see you have boolean operators but these are seriously cumbersome to use in comparison to AI's shape tool) Offset Path e.g. click a path, click offset path (I did a workaround of duplicating my stroke, then on one increasing the Stroke to 20pt then Expanding the stroke, then removing my original stroke/shape away from the new expanded stroke... a ridiculously long winded way of doing it) I've seen requests for these features going back to 2014, which is really quite worrying.  You use to have a roadmap but thats disappeared.
    My question is this... are you still working on any of these features so many people have requested?It would be great to see them on a Roadmap...
    Can we have some transparency on when these features will (or will not) be worked on?  
    I've looked all through the forum for answers but found nothing (apologies if I've missed it) but fluffy answers like "coming soon", "any day now", or "it's in the roadmap"... clearly these don't cut it and date badly looking back at them (somebody wasn't being 100%)... straight forward, honest answers would go a really long way. 
    Can you please bring the Roadmap back? (it's at least something)
    Chiefmonkey

  11. Like
    jstnhllmn got a reaction from Phil_rose in Blending shapes   
    @deedsNails it.
    In an effort to refresh both design and software skills (dormant since art school over a decade ago), I purchased the suite. I've been fiddling, running through tutorials on Skillshare, seeing what still works in my artistic brain. Sadly, AD is technologically incapable of allowing users to complete a frustrating majority of elementary design projects. I think this is generally where @deedsfinds the pillar of his argument that AD is much more for illustration than design. There's too much that it cannot do that anyone who expects to work seriously will need it to do.
    AD is a 20th century solution to 21st century design problems. Until it grows up, the only aspect of all-things Adobe where an argument can be made for it is through the pricing model, which seems wonderful, until tripping over the inability to execute a specific, relatively fundamental design technique leads to the asphyxiation and stymieing of the creative mind.
    The "roadmap" that a prospective buyer might peruse before deciding to make a purchase is a well-manicured cul-de-sac.
     
  12. Like
    jstnhllmn got a reaction from Phil_rose in Blending shapes   
    @deedsNails it.
    In an effort to refresh both design and software skills (dormant since art school over a decade ago), I purchased the suite. I've been fiddling, running through tutorials on Skillshare, seeing what still works in my artistic brain. Sadly, AD is technologically incapable of allowing users to complete a frustrating majority of elementary design projects. I think this is generally where @deedsfinds the pillar of his argument that AD is much more for illustration than design. There's too much that it cannot do that anyone who expects to work seriously will need it to do.
    AD is a 20th century solution to 21st century design problems. Until it grows up, the only aspect of all-things Adobe where an argument can be made for it is through the pricing model, which seems wonderful, until tripping over the inability to execute a specific, relatively fundamental design technique leads to the asphyxiation and stymieing of the creative mind.
    The "roadmap" that a prospective buyer might peruse before deciding to make a purchase is a well-manicured cul-de-sac.
     
  13. Like
    jstnhllmn got a reaction from Phil_rose in Blending shapes   
    @deedsNails it.
    In an effort to refresh both design and software skills (dormant since art school over a decade ago), I purchased the suite. I've been fiddling, running through tutorials on Skillshare, seeing what still works in my artistic brain. Sadly, AD is technologically incapable of allowing users to complete a frustrating majority of elementary design projects. I think this is generally where @deedsfinds the pillar of his argument that AD is much more for illustration than design. There's too much that it cannot do that anyone who expects to work seriously will need it to do.
    AD is a 20th century solution to 21st century design problems. Until it grows up, the only aspect of all-things Adobe where an argument can be made for it is through the pricing model, which seems wonderful, until tripping over the inability to execute a specific, relatively fundamental design technique leads to the asphyxiation and stymieing of the creative mind.
    The "roadmap" that a prospective buyer might peruse before deciding to make a purchase is a well-manicured cul-de-sac.
     
  14. Thanks
    jstnhllmn reacted to deeds in Blending shapes   
    I'm afraid these are all indicative of the exact opposite of your desires. 
    The "rush" on arrowheads was over multiple years. Yet it feels tacky, wacky and hacky. And is just that. So are dashes. And these are the most simplistic of line endings and line features. To me, these are yet another indication that the product design constraints and compromises favoured illustration, not design. As a result, it's years between requests for primitive design features and their implementation, for things (like blends) that are integral to iterative, creative and exploratory digital design, but of almost no use to illustrators.
    The features you're talking about in Adobe Blends, that are useful for iterative and explorative design, came about as a byproduct of the desire to provide complex gradient creation and editing - via blends - something blend shapes are only tangentially suitable for. It was Adobe's way of saving time by repurposing focus on heavy blends gradients rather than creating a good set of gradient tools. I remember when this was first brokered to the world of designers. Adobe already owned the design media, so got them to parrot their beliefs, despite how clunky it was/is.
     
    So I completely agree, looking at Adobe blends for inspiration should only be done from the perspective of their integration... for blend mechanics of operation, other means and methods are far superior. And there are big issues to solve, like unwinding direction and origin, interpolation when vertex counts are different, rate of change curves, etc. But to do that kind of discernment requires a designers eye and experience, just as knowing integration well requires utilising it, and learning to lean on that integration for creative empowerment, deadline targeting, deliverables and differentiation. I don't think anyone at Affinity does this kind of product feature testing and consideration, let alone being capable of separation wheat from chaff.
    When Adobe Illustrator is viewed through the prism of vector based illustrative endeavour, an improved version looks like Affinity Designer. 
    When Adobe Illustrator is viewed through the tunnel of programmer art creation requirements and thinking, you get Sketch, from Bohemian Coding.
    When viewing Adobe Illustrator through the prism of creative design requirements, it looks abhorrent. Because it is. Freehand, Xara and CorelDraw were better for general design, Fireworks was in a class of its own for UI design, and Flash was an innovative set of odd ideas that sort of worked.
    We are now at an odd spot. 3D design programs have superior 2D design features than those apps pretending to appeal to 2D designers, yet those 3D design apps have the 2D features as a byproduct of providing ways to prep for 3D.
     
    Affinity Designer has somewhat gotten the effects right, but the rendering is bad, particularly in things like gradients and glows, shadows and blendings between them. And the lack of ability to reorder and add extras is beginning to look as it is: antiquated. Then there's the two different ways of interacting with them, neither of which is good. A fair indication that the features were checkpoints rather than considered and internally desired.
     
    Affinity Designer vector node editing remains its strongest point (please excuse the pun), as a byproduct of the fascination with illustration, not as an end and goal in and of itself. This is borne out by the fact that the points aren't anything like capable of the elastic adjustment possible in CorelDraw or soft selection in 3D apps both of which date back to the early days of digital creation wherein vertices are considered parts of meshes that make up shapes.
    I'm using less than 10% of Affinity Designer because I don't have a Wacom device, is how I view this. For anything complex in design, I turn to a PC and Corel and 3ds Max.
  15. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to Phil_rose in Blending shapes   
    Good morning everybody,
    I am finding another thing that seems to be missing from Designer which I use an awful lot in CorelDRAW and which is kind worrying to me unless maybe I'm missing something. In Corel I have a blend tool. I believe Illustrator has the same thing though I don't use Illustrator. It allows me to create two objects and blend them together. This is particularly useful for creating interesting drop shadows and so on. Is there really no way to do this in Designer? I'm attaching a screenshot to show you what I mean. Corel allows me to choose which aspects of each object interact with one another.
    Hopefully there is some way of doing this or it will be added as it seems like a very important tool to me.
    Thanks very much and let me know!
    Phil

  16. Sad
  17. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to Tupaia in Isometric studio is helpful, but when do we get a real free transform tool in Designer ?!   
    True, but it misses a Center! That cripples it, because how do you rotate/scale about an arbitrary center now?
    Illustrator can do this!
    Posted this here already. Sorry, bit OT.
     
    +1 for Free Transform!!
  18. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to TLeyva in Isometric studio is helpful, but when do we get a real free transform tool in Designer ?!   
    Don't get me wrong. I understand that Affinity has done some amazing work in just a few years. Adobe has been at it for nearly 30 years. The point I guess I'm making is, if Affinity were to ask my opinion (as a user of Adobe software since 1991 and working artist since 1987), is that they should take the input of professionals seriously.
      A survey of pros would be great. That way, they could prioritize new features and maybe put a nail in Adobe's coffin sooner, rather than later. Not only that. The sooner they add the most coveted features, the sooner pros like me will switch over 100%. AND, I would not mind paying for updates occasionally for a good product. I just HATE paying a subscription to Adobe, or anybody.
     Then again, their goal may be to pick up the casual user with the iPad app version, and not to win over professional desktop users. I don't know, since I'm not in the meetings.
  19. Sad
    jstnhllmn reacted to mmuller in Isometric studio is helpful, but when do we get a real free transform tool in Designer ?!   
    To be fair, I bought both applications as soon as they dropped and have used them extensively and look forward to publisher too. The improvement over two years is startling considering they have not required a paid update yet!
    If you absolutely needed those features, you could have been a CC user, but then you will have spent £1408 to have said features... Not the £100 two years ago...

     
    But it would be nice to see it added
  20. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to MadMak in Isometric studio is helpful, but when do we get a real free transform tool in Designer ?!   
    I guess, this is the way Serif set their business priorities. We can cry and pray, but things are not going to change unless Serif change plans. They try to make money and if a version for iPad will earn them more money in less time, iPad app wins in the priorities list. We can't really do anything about it. This the way modern business models work.
  21. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to grapher in Isometric studio is helpful, but when do we get a real free transform tool in Designer ?!   
    i really dont understand one thing. there are few things, that are making this software a jewel on the market. On the other hand, long-term long-asked features and bugs, that are making professionals move away from it. Why? Such stupid thing like free transform. or broken expand stroke. years here.  Rotating, scaling group of nodes, its finally here! Hurray.  after years asking.

    Still, you better develop in meantime version for ipad.
     
     
  22. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to TLeyva in Isometric studio is helpful, but when do we get a real free transform tool in Designer ?!   
    I too have loved Designer. I bought it and have begun creating the illustrations for what I hope will be my first book ever. I have been a Photoshop and Illustrator user since the early 1990's. I had so much hope for Designer, but then ran into the same issue of no "Free Transform" option. You can only scale, stretch, skew, and rotate. With no option to make a selection change "perspective", a massive requirement for me is missing!
     Affinity, please get this implemented as soon as possible, since I am willing to go 100% Affinity products of you can get a few much needed features like this added. Thanks.
  23. Like
  24. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to GT70 in Isometric studio is helpful, but when do we get a real free transform tool in Designer ?!   
    You're absolutely right. This software promises a lot but then has its legs cut off because there are several things missing to make it really a great softawre to the point that many of us have to go back to using Adobe Illustrator if we need to work with the free transform tool.
    I think it's really absurd not to listen to what users have been asking for for a long time as they support you and encourage you to improve more and more.
    Honestly, I'm not interested in iPad versions (which I bought) or versions for publication (like InDesign).
    I have the impression that they waste of effort and creates a lot of software that is not 100% complete. I think they should first complete one and then switch to the other.
    So I add myself to the appeal: when will you insert this blessed function?
    Or is the alternative back to Illustrator?
    Sorry for my bad english
  25. Like
    jstnhllmn reacted to joro_abv in Isometric studio is helpful, but when do we get a real free transform tool in Designer ?!   
    Hi,
    I was trying the isometric studio in the latest beta, in an effort to use it as e replacement for a real "Free transform" tool and ... well ... it does not cut it ! It is hard to use and with a result very far from precise enough to replace a real free transform and distort of an object.
    So, I'm trying to rise this question again - when do we get a real "Free transform" tool in Designer (both vector and pixel) ? Since basically every other tool on the market including Illustrator and even the now dead Fireworks has it, I guess it is not that hard to implement, for vectors at least.
×

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.