Jump to content

Vaaish

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vaaish

  1. Cool, thanks! It doesn't seem that my case is listed so I'll go ahead and post it. Multiple consecutive inline tables are not importing correctly to Publisher. They appear on top of each other and are not affected by wrapping or any other means I can see to space them out. The desired behavior is that the table is placed inline below the previous table. Attached is the IMDL, Publisher file and a PDF showing the correct placement. Skitarii3x.idml Skitarii3x.afpub AdMech0.94.pdf
  2. No need to get defensive. I'm well aware it's a beta and I didn't want to post a bug before verifying that the functionality was supported.
  3. Is there a list of unsupported functions for IMDL import? I was trying it out on an old document that has a lot of inline tables and it's doing this:
  4. I think I'm missing something here or at least this there has to be some confusion of terms going on. For context, I've used Illustrator for over 15 years and in the last year I've been poking at using Designer since I'm tired of the subscription model pricing for CC. Just double checking today, I find very little difference between Designer and Illustrator when it comes to the function of art boards though there is a good bit of difference in how I access things. Designer's artboards drag contained objects with them when rearranged just like Illustrator. Both programs can print or export artboards with printers marks, both can create ad hoc artboards. Sure Illustrator uses a panel to manage them while designer places them in the layers panel, but neither option seems significantly better. I can't speak to the database functions as I've never needed them, but I really can't say I notice much of a difference between the apps when dealing with artboards outside of Illustrator having a properties panel and Designer treating them more like a shape once placed.
  5. The blue on the bottom one is out of gamut for CMYK printing. If you're doc is set to CMYK it'll show up like the top one regardless of whether it's in Publisher or InDesign. I pulled your bottom image into InDesign with the doc set to CMYK. If you want to test this, open the image in Photo and then change the color space to cmyk, it'll switch to look like the top one.
  6. This is the first time in 10 years doing this I've had a request like this one. Usually if an EPS is requested you send the eps and that's that. Just straight up exporting an EPS will result in what you've found, any rasterized bits being embedded in the file. Further, you can't just export and relink them... at least in CS6. They are in some kind of weird state and of course you can't open the EPS in Affinity to attempt exporting them because you'll run into the same issue when you export.
  7. I recently finished a project for a client to test Designer in a production environment. This mostly went quite well until I got a very odd request from the printer. They asked that the files be delivered as AI or EPS with all images linked and provided as separate files. This set off a rather frustrating day of trying to find a way to get the files to the printer as specified. I did get it "working" but it was a very messy process: Export from Designer as PDF Open PDF in Illustrator Manually move all template elements to a new layer Copy out any rasterized elements to Photoshop Save these as tiffs relink the files save final eps I've been trying to figure out a simpler way to do this with just affinity products and I'm a bit stuck. The problem lies with the use of gradients on the strokes. When exported as an EPS from Designer, these strokes are expanded and the gradient is turned into an image fill. This makes it impractical to accommodate the printers needs. Exporting as a PDF still expands the strokes, but at least the gradients come in as unknown vector data. Does anyone know a way I can get Affinity to export the EPS with all elements that it rasterizes as linked? I've attached the file for anyone if they want to give it a go. TuckBox_Final.afdesign
  8. I'd disagree unless the piece is finished art. I can expand the stroke if I have to too, but since this piece is still in production, it gives you less flexibility and fine control of the gaps especially for on the fly adjustments.... and none of that negates that there appears to be a bug in the PDF export of them, hence my original post.
  9. It looks wrong on Chrome too, like it's splitting the stroke but it's close together. The setting I have in Designer for those are a single dashed line with 60, 3, 1, 0 phase -6 which is the same as the colored one that shows up correctly.
  10. For clarification, it's the bit circled in red here that's different. The shot in Designer shows these to be identical, but the PDF attached above displays and prints the dash terminus on the back version much shorter than it should.
  11. I have two duplicated pages with identical stroke settings and geometry for the long rays around the balloon that display identically in Designer. The problem occurs when I export a PDF and the dash at the end of the rays on the all black version are shorter than the color version. The screenshot shows how it looks in Designer and the PDF shows what happens when I export it. Jokers_RD01a.pdf
  12. I didn't realize applying multiple masters was possible. It's really hidden away there. It still seems a really really odd way. Totally alien to the InDesign workflow of one master per page but allowing masters to be based on other versions. That does create some nice options for masters and COULD be a functional alternative to nested ones, but the interface for this needs a major overhaul. Why not allow us to select multiple masters initially instead of one at a time? Why not let us select multiple masters in the master page studio and drop them on at one time? anyway... I digress a bit here. Regardless of multiple masters, there still needs to be a way to identify them visually on each page. This could be as simple as adding an extra line under the page name that says which masters are on there. Maybe it we could set master page colors and have a swatch for each master applied next to the page. This is critical information to know at a glance for complex documents.
  13. @Jobalou The terminology affinity is using seems to be different but the effect is the same as the forced line break you're looking for. Maybe the menu option could get updated to clarify it's a forced line break?
  14. The new beta adds in linked values for the bleed and margin settings and bleed preview which is very nice but we need to have bleed settings on the new doc screen too. I'm still really not sure what master pages are good for here either. Other than very basic use setting design elements and header/footer stuff they seem really awkward. I'd love to hear what the dev's goals are for these.
  15. Has anyone found nested styles in the beta? If not, these would be great to have. Very useful.
  16. @walt.farrell Sorry, yes the picture frame tool. I was going off memory and defaulted to Image Frame. Edited
  17. Thanks walt, but that's not really what I'm talking about here at all. The current function of the place image tool that you're referencing creates an image that has limited options compared to an image placed using the image frame. For example: Place Image only allows you to scale and replace the image or file that's been selected. (I should note that IMAGES selected will still give fill and stroke options though no corner options, but files, like a PDF will not give any options.) Picture Frame allows you to specify how the image scales within the frame, scale the image, replace the image, add frame fill colors, add frame strokes, and adjust frame corner options. That creates two objects that look the same but have different properties and no really clear benefit to this distinction. I'm suggesting that instead, the place image tool create an object in a way that is consistant with the object created Picture Frame tool so that either route provides consistant handling of the images. I'm not asking for workarounds or potential extra steps to get the effect, I'm pointing out what to me is an inconsistency that's at odds with how I (the user here) would expect the tools to function. I'd expect that regardless of using Place Image or Picture Frame, I'd have the same options available. Example.afpub
  18. I've been messing around with the beta to see how it holds up and there's a lot to like, but one thing that frustrates me to no end is the Place Image and Picture Frame tools. Initially I used place image to, well, place an image only to find that I couldn't access any of the controls for the image and was limited to just replace doc/edit doc which is useless for most things compared to the controls you get with the Picture Frame tool. I Immediately did the same thing with the Image Frame tool and effectively had an identical result, but with the embedded doc as the child of the Image Frame which allows for adding all the expected properties. I'd like to suggest that the Place Image tool just go ahead and create the image frame wrapper around the selected image. I believe the appearance and function would be identical to what's here now with the added benefits that the structure and properties are uniform for all image elements in the doc.
  19. Then apparently I wasn't as clear as I thought. My apologies. I'm calling bull on this. We SAY that's the case because the industry DOES revolve on Adobe's globe due to Adobe's near monopoly. Adobe is the standard because they've provided the most widely available integrated toolset and shut down any potential competition for the last what 30+ years. To pretend that is the case simply because everyone keeps saying Adobe's the standard, well, that's just... naïve. It's only been in the last 5 years or so there's even been a crack in the empire with the UI design segment exploding.
  20. You're setting up a straw man here because AI -> PS isn't an appropriate comparison and isn't at all what I'm arguing for. Take 3d formats for example. Obviously you won't get a 1:1 of all proprietary features with different formats, but you can still be reasonably sure that if you are sent an OBJ, 3ds, or DAE that you'll be able to import the model and edit it if necessary. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. Adobe owns the design industry and is THE standard for any kind of professional design workflow. It's 20 years of lockdown and unless you find a way to work with CC, the cost of entry is too high for most agencies to even think about switching so I have to either use Adobe or use something that can integrate with it when other team members need to touch files. That's why this kind of interchange is necessary and why talking about interchange with other alternative apps is much less relavant here. Because Serif has done such a great job with the PSD import/export it almost functions as a seamless interchange with Adobe... just that tiny issue of no editable text can be exported kills it. I can sort of work around it if no text is needed on the document, but there's a surprising amount of it that ends up on anything from social images to banners and other graphics. Outside of PSD's there really isn't many options on the raster front. I hope that one day Serif can get the export figured out, but it's a bit naïve assume it'll ever change and jump platforms entirely hoping it does. Vector is a much, much sticker issue. Despite having SVG and EPS to send back and forth, I've been having difficulty getting consistent results from Affinity. Case in point, I did a simple test illustration with some strokes, clipping paths, and gradients. With EPS I ended up getting the gradients rasterized and with SVG I got the strokes expanded if they weren't set to centered. Sometimes the illustration came in with strokes massively thicker than Designer too. Combine that with limited information as to WHAT will change when exported, it makes it impossible to do an illustration expect it'll look right when it's opened vs just doing it in illustrator. TL/DR: Photo -> Photoshop is ok, but could be practically indistinguishable if text worked on export. Designer -> Illustrator seems very hit or miss with limited indication of what is or isn't supported and uncertain results opening EPS and SVG in Illustrator.
  21. I'm not asking for full compatibility. Seamless handoff means I can provide an end user editable format either vector or raster and know that they can open the doc and make any necessary changes in Photoshop or another app. That doesn't necessarily mean that we are able to hand off Adobe native formats, just some format that's common and can be used as an interchange between Affinity and Adobe.
  22. I don't post much on these forums but I do regularly follow the discussions and check out what's happening with the roadmaps and betas. A bit of context before I continue. I've practiced as a graphic designer specializing in branding and web for the last 10+ years and used Adobe products for as long as I can remember. I stopped upgrading once Adobe released CC because I saw no reason to upgrade from CS6. Last year I started a comprehensive review of all my tools and workflow to see if there was a "better" option out there. Eventually I settled on Figma for UI and prototyping and started looking seriously at Affinity. Overall I've been impressed with Photo. For my workflow, there's really nothing it can't handle and there's some nice functional options with snapping controls, exporting and handling of vector objects that I don't get with CS6. Where things fall apart is team integration with agency work where I have to deliver PSDs. Photo does an admirable job of importing and exporting PSD's but unfortunately we can't export a PSD with editable type. So... that is a hard stop that adds an extra step of adding type in CS6. I also purchased Designer recently because I was fed up with the travesty that snapping is in AI CS6 and the lack of an updated pantone book. Again there are wonderful features that aid my workflow with how Designer deals with clipping masks, symbols, grids, and snapping. For most of my work, Designer functions quite well but sadly it feels less intuitive and polished than Photo. There were definitely some hurdles with how Affinity deals with open paths and joining paths, but primarily, file delivery is a problem. I need to be able to deliver files that can be easily edited using the Adobe suite and that's proven... difficult with Designer. EPS has it's limitations and it also seems that Adobe cheats by embedding a full AI inside the EPS that it actually loads when you open an EPS generated by AI. SVG is the only other real option here as PDF also has issues. It seems that there are other odd limitations, for example setting strokes to anything other than centered expands the stroke and getting gradients to open as vectors took some effort. That partly opens the door to pulling the illustrations into AI to export but does require an extra step of adjusting the design to make sure it functions correctly for handoff. So, what does that have to do with this thread? Well, in a vacuum, Affinity functions well for my needs and significantly improves my workflow but once I have to deal with file handoff Affinity adds inefficiency to my workflow. Roadmap wise, things are a bit murky and the timeline is undefined with the further complication of support for the new iPad versions and the upcoming Publisher. Unfortunately that means I can't expect any change in the foreseeable future and Photo and Designer, while capable of professional level work, just can't play ball as part of a team that 99% controlled by Adobe. Give me the ability to seamlessly handoff files and we're golden until then, Adobe wins. e: I'm still planning to use Photo and Designer for non agency work, because it meets all the needs I've had and significantly boosts my workflow efficiency but it's definitely not a one stop solution.
  23. Will you be able to implement any from of IMDL import/export for Publisher? Like it or not, Adobe is industry standard and being able to convert their files is probably an essential feature. Back when Quark was still king, being able to pull open their files in Adobe made it much easier to switch. http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/indesign/sdk/cs6/idml/idml-specification.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...

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.