Jump to content

Friksel

Members
  • Content count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Friksel

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Sean P Ah okay, I didn't know that. That makes a lot more sense then the way I constructed the document now indeed. I sent you just a simplified version of the full document. Changed it here and it works fine as you explained now. So this one can be closed. Thanks for your effort and quick response.
  2. I agree completely. People here writing the differences are minimal just aren't really serious about their jobs. There should be NO difference. And 99,9% of the time after outlining borders I have to correct the hundreds to thousands of way too many anchor points on the weirdest places. The formulas underneath obviously just don't make any sense or are still full of bugs. A vector-program is all about vectors and math and exactly that is so hugely unreliable and full of bugs. And even after so many people complaining about this it's not being fixed after months or maybe even year(s), while new features still being added, the Affinity website completely reworked, another website launched, a new product added, with existing products with these kind of nasty bugs still there, is just crazy. If I look at how little changes and fixes are made in months for the upcoming 1.6.5 stable release I wonder if Affinity got its priorities straight. In my opinion if Affinity isn't changing it's priorities a lot of the professionals will be gone in no time and never return. I'm at the point rightnow I find so many issues, but strongly got the feeling no one at this company is taking them seriously, so starting to wonder why I would still take the time and effort to report these bugs and trying to help, if no one is fixing them. And I'm obviously not the only one. If Affinity has too little developers, then hire developers. If Affinity has too little testers, then hire testers. If Affinity has too little budget, then higher the price. But this is not a product that professionals can rely on for real world production projects like this. And believe me, I'd rather be a fan and stay, so I still hope them to proof me wrong. But right now this product is costing me more money and time that would justify a switch back to Adobe. And I'd rather don't.
  3. @MikeW Thanks for your reaction. If that's the case here the font should not show up in the application.
  4. For some fonts problems arise in Designer in the font style dropdown. As you can see in the images below Windows shows the several types of the Bahnschrift-font the correct way, but in Designer there's only a list full of 'Regular's for this font. The font is included in the attachments. Bahnschrift Bold Condensed.otf
  5. @Sean P Here's a screencapture. At first I just write text after existing text. You can see wordwrapped-lines have a different leading then existing lines. Notice that the properties don't change in the Character panel. That's also the case when selecting the new lines, the properties remain the same wherever you click. After that I selected part of the textblock and pasted without styling (ctrl-alt-shift-V) a lorem ipsum. Here you can see also overwritten text get a different leading. I didn't record this, but I can tell you here that when I select the wordwrapped text (so with the wrong leading/line-height) and change the leading, the text indeed changes the leading visibly on screen. But still it's a different leading as set in non-wordwrapped lines for some reason. Hope this helps. wordwrap-problem.mp4
  6. @Mark Ingram Both Photo and Designer (windows) here are on version 1.6.4.104. I don't get a message on startup of both programs to upgrade. You wrote earlier the latest stable version is 1.6.5, so what was that about? Is there a problem designer and photo here aren't updating, or is the latest version still 1.6.4.104?
  7. When text gets wordwrapped inside a textblock (or by pasting text into an existing textblock) all wordwrapped lines don't respect the leading and we're not able to set leading for those lines in the properties. The only way to get the right leading (as set in properties) on the wordwrapped lines seems to be to add linefeed-characters to ALL LINES by hand.
  8. @Mark Ingram I don't see any download links on the website and on this forum I can only find beta versions of 1.5 which are not for production. Where can I download this stable 1.6.5 version?
  9. What? Really? ??? You now come up with these kind of excuses without even taking the time for an explanation? If this was really by design, you are not only designing or hobbyist, instead of for professionals, you are inconcistant with your own design. I really feel betrayed in trusting this product for my company, shifting projects to designer from illustrator. That obviously was a big mistake. You advertise with being there for the professional market, but in reality the software is full of nasty bugs that take forever to fix and there is no professional support. You guys even don't seem to understand what professionals really need and it looks like the priorities are not in sync with those of the professional customers you say you adress the software to. Even after months of using this software there never was only one release with bugfixes and looking at this forum other people are still waiting for bugfixes for years. Not for small bugs, but for mayor bugs. In the meantime Serif starts new projects and new fancy features, but the existing unstable products don't seem to get any fixes. Making people and companies feel unheard and mad. Months ago when I discovered Designer I took the risk in trusting you guys and trusted that you where thinking like professionals for professionals. Making the right judgements and setting the right priorities. And at least supply us with updates on a regular basis. I was very positive about your product and I was glad to get rid of Adobe, but I'm starting to feel that I made a mistake and even Adobe is a better option now. It's very disapointing you handle professional customers like this, not even taking them seriously and throwing such standard excuses or not even reacting at all at people taking the time to explain issues in the software, so people feel ignored and you give the impression you just don't care. You can't handle professional companies having the patience and still even taking the time to explain how to fix things for the product to apply to the professional webdesign/webdevelopment market like this. It's starting to look arrogant. And I don't get it. You have this beatiful opportunity to make a big product for the professional market because of the mistake Adobe made with its license model people are complaining about, but you guys seem to just blow the opportunity in making professionals feel unheard and mad. Making them leaving and never come back if this continues to give you guys another benefit of the doubt. And looking at myself, I was very positive and would help you guys making the product better. But if you keep reacting like this, not taking professionals in their fields seriously, they walk away. Just take a look at some signals on your own forum getting louder and louder of people not being heard. They are not just complaining, they were first asking and asking and didn't get heard. It's almost like you're not designing this product for professionals, but for yourselves or hobbyists. Then just don't advertise that you design for the professional market. And stop using excuses you are a small company. That's not our problem. Just invest in developers and higher the price if you need to. But like another guy on this forum wrote; don't leave all testing to us. Hire professionals to do that. That's what should be done if you want to address the PROFESSIONAL market. For us professionals time is money. We don't have the time to test your product, it should just work. The last weeks I had to spend so much extra time in things just to go around mayor bugs and missing capabilities in Designer that cost a lot of money, I'd rather spend that money on a stable product with professional support and people understanding what professionals really need. Even basic things in Designer aren't finished. This is just not a product we can use for production work because of the bugs still not fixed. Just to name a few: - Converting things to curves causes geometries to fully distort lots of time and it's creating too many redundant anchor points. This is the MAIN feature of a vector tool and it's still not working as it should - Using boolean operations cause a lot of problems with the geometries, making them full of unnececary anchor points and therefor most of the time just useless for professional work - Snapping doesn't work. Snapping two element to each other STILL leaves a gap between these objects. What's the use of snapping if it doesn't snap directly to the object??? Like this it might suit hobbyists, but it's useless for professionals. - What's that with the OK and cancel-buttons in the alignment panel? If I don't press OK, then the alignment still takes place... - If we set an opacity and tab out of the control, the new opacity is not applied. We have to press ENTER to apply opacity. Which is crazy. And not according to windows conventions and so different then all other software out there. These are not minor things, these are things we bump up to all day everyday as professionals. And it's annoying. These things are easy to fix for Serif and should be fixed already. - We can't even remove a gradient stop - SVG export could be fine for amatures trying to just output some graphic to svg for a viewer, but is missing too many things to be uses on websites for interactives and animations. If you advertise in supplying for professional market making a better svg-export is a must. - There are a lot of inconsistancies in the program. Strange different color picker a lot of people (including me) don't want, different color choosers on different panels, sometimes missing 'OK' and 'Cancel'-buttons. Constrains are not working when using numeric values. - Everytime the toolspanel gets undocked while working because clicking on the 'edgecolor' to select it is almost impossible without once clicking next to it - Symbols are buggy. After placing only a few symbols all new symbols while dragging you can seen be drawn slowly on screen. It's crazy. - How to apply symbols? How to swap symbols? How to make an instance of a symbol invisible? - A lot of things don't get saved in the .afDesignerfile, like snap to pixel. So as a user you have to enable it everytime you load the file. - A lot of people wants to crop our image (like me), without having to use artboards or whatever. Why not just listen to us and add a crop function? Which is just basic functionality. - Zooming out the view a lot of times shows a white border around a rectangle that is set to full size of the artboard/canvas/page. But zooming in, it's not there. So basically we can't trust the image we see when zoomed out. Everytime we have to check if the background rectangle is fitting the artboard/canvas/page just to find out it is. It's annoying. - Why on adding a new layer when a layer or group is selected, the layer isn't going inside the group or layer? - Rotation/skew sliders are so small that it is just impossible to adjust the values with a wacom tablet (or mouse). There is more, but just to name a few. Yes, this is making me mad by now. I can't be patient forever. I just need to do my daily work as a professional and trust the basic things a vector program needs: being able to trust the vector tools and have the same export as what I put in the design. But both aren't the case here. Please take professionals seriously and do something about this.
  10. @Patrick Connor Ow wow, I only see now I thought you were reacting to the other thread I just opened, the one about rounded rectangles here: But basically the same could be said on this issue as well: having the svg-exporter create additional groups 'on its own' (without us knowing it) is not right, because we (must be able to) rely that the svg output hierarchy is be the same as build in Designer as far as the export-format allows it and svg does. Even with multiple effects applied to an object we still don't want extra redundant svg <g> (group) elements to be automatically added, 'cause svg can chain effects with their 'in'-attributes so we only need one filter set per graphical element, even if there are more effects applied. Basically the system works exacly the same as in the editor of Designer. So the output should be 1 on 1 the same hierarchy making sure we can rely on the svg-output to be the same hierarchy as meant by the creator of the design in Designer. Instead it should be: what you see in Designer is what you get in the svg-export. And it's not. Next to because of the fact that this is causing overly complex and large svg-files and splitting parameters of one object into different svg-elements, causing overly complex javascript to read and write these attributes, I call this an issue rather than a feature request.
  11. Hi @Patrick Connor, thanks for your response and I understand your question. The thing is this IS affecting our apps because Javascript can't read the attributes it needs from the elements anymore that should be in the output, causing apps to fail. In Designer we picked a 'rectangle', so we need to have a 'rectangle' as output, not a path. It's like a factory creating a car with wheels and when the car is leaving the factory suddenly the wheels are glued to the frame so the wheels can't spin anymore. As a car is useless with glued wheels, shapes are useless as paths, because they lack all attributes we need to 'spin' them (scale, position, change rounded corner-radius and so on). Think of bar graphs for example. A designer generates bars with rounded rectangles so the developer can use the attributes (with, height, x and y, but also rx and ry) to animate the bars with javascript for the web. Even this very simple example is now suddenly very difficult and complex to do with paths, is way to complex for such a simple task and leeds to all kind of problems and a lot less performance and way too much code, resulting in everything to be larger and slower. So basically this is pretty useless for real world professional usecases. Please keep in mind that SVG is not meant to be used as an exchange-format to exchange vector-graphics between graphic software, but most of the time the output of the design, used directly on internet-pages and a lot of times even controlled by css and javascript for animations and interactive applications. Btw, also if people use svg to move graphics from one software program to another, instead of exchanging the .designer, .ai, .pdf or .eps instead, Designer is still changing the design on export: it's converting simple objects to paths. And it is not supposed to do that, it's supposed to keep the layout the same on export as far as possible for the given format. To come back to the issue: having paths as outputs instead of rectangles is not right and pretty useless. It prevents the elements from being used in apps. It's also inconsistent, unwanted and unexpected behaviour. Therefor I call this an issue, rather than a feature request.
  12. When exporting a rectangle to svg without effects the result is as expected: <rect x="420" y="260" width="460" height="200" style="fill:#ebebeb;"/> But when we add an effect, like gaussian blur to that rectangle the svg-exporter automatically generates a wrapper-group around the element just to apply the effect: <g style="filter:url(#_Effect1);"> <rect x="420" y="260" width="460" height="200" style="fill:#ebebeb;"/> </g> This is what I would expect instead: <rect x="420" y="260" width="460" height="200" style="fill:#ebebeb;" style="filter:url(#_Effect1);"/> I understand wrapper groups could be a way to stack effects if we want to use more than one effect on an object (although even then svg allows filters to be chained via their 'in'-attributes), but that's not the case here because we just use a single effect. If we only apply one effect to an object, in my opinion the effect should go directly to the style-attribute of the element itself instead of creating additional groups and with that changing the hierarchy of the layout. Also when having more than one effect applied to an element the first effect should go in the style of the element itself. Adding these additional groups makes the svg output overly complex and large and in Javascript we now need to keep track of/set two different elements when controlling attributes both on the element itself as well as switching the single effect of the group above dynamically. I might be missing something here, but I searched through all of Designer and in the svg-exporter options, but couldn't find any setting to prevent these extra groups to be created on exports. I also tested this in the last Designer beta (1.6.5.112), but it has the exact same behaviour. Please add at least the first effect to the svg-element itself and prevent adding groups as much as possible. [edit] Please put svg effects directly to the graphical element or use svg effects chaining instead. Don't create additional groups/change hierarchy. Leave the structure in svg output 1 on 1 the same as created in Designer. And meant by the designer
  13. When creating a normal rectangle in Designer and exporting to svg the result is as expected: <rect x="240" y="380" width="740" height="60" style="fill:rgb(96,240,103);"/> But when we set the rectangle to have rounded corners, or use the rounded rectangle tool instead, the svg-exporter now suddenly converts the rectangle to a (much longer) path-element: <path d="M980,290C980,273.443 966.557,260 950,260L270,260C253.443,260 240,273.443 240,290C240,306.557 253.443,320 270,320L950,320C966.557,320 980,306.557 980,290Z" style="fill:rgb(96,240,103);"/> BTW It doesn't matter if 'flatten transforms' is enabled or disabled in the exporter, I didn't converted the rectangle to curves and I found the same behaviour using the latest Designer beta-version (1.6.5.112) That's not what I would expect and is causing problems in projects here, because since the rectangle now is converted into a path this prevents Javascript to get (or dynamically set!!) the properties that came with these basic shapes on purpose, like x, y, width and height, but also the rounded corner-radius itself. This is what I would expect instead: SVG knows about rounded rectangles; they are just rectangles but with two additional attributes added: rx and ry for the rounded corner-radius x and y. So in this case this is what I would expect: <rect x="240" y="260" rx="30" ry="30" width="740" height="60" style="fill:rgb(96,240,103);"/> I might be missing something here, but I searched everywhere and couldn't find a way to output to just rounded rectangles instead of paths in the svg-exporter. For a project I'm working on right now I had to remove all roundings from all rectangles in the Designer file (so had to change the layout to something we don't want) just to output svg <rect> elements instead of paths. And than after the exporting we need to add the cx and cy attributes to all rect-elements manually in a code editor after (each!!) Designer svg-export we do... So every time the design changes even a little bit, we need to redo this all over again or manually copy and paste only selections from the new svg-file to our working svg-file. As you might understand that's not really efficient, causes mistakes/errors pretty easily, takes a lot of time (and money!!) we rather use on designing, animating and programming and is pretty frustrating. For interactive/animation use we really need to have rectangles as outputs if we use rectangles in Designer, also on rounded rectangles. If we use rectangles by design, we'd like to have them in the output too. Otherwise we would have converted them to curves instead. With rectangles as output we can set/animate width, height, x, y etc dynamically, and even the rounding-radius of the <rect> by Javascript. But with paths that's much more complicated and makes everything overly complex, which is totally unnecesary and results in too much code or less performant results. Basically the above counts for all basic shapes in Designer that are supported in SVG: if there are svg elements that match the basic Designer shape, please export them to those elements instead of converting them to paths. There is a reason for existence for all basic shapes in svg: they have special properties we need. And their names like <rect> are much more symantic too. Next to this, as you can see in the example, exporting to paths instead result most, if not all, of the time in much larger svg-files and we try to keep our files as small as possible for fast loading and performance, especially for use on mobile devices / internet. Keep in mind the above example only shows just one rectangle. This counts up pretty fast with having more shapes in the design. Bottomline: Please export basic shapes in svg to basic svg shapes! If we'd like to have paths, we can always convert them to curves instead before exporting to svg. Thanks!!
  14. Thanks a lot @Chris_K, I was just about to write you this, 'cause I just found out the same here, but you were first. I see it's also flattening paths, so it seems like it does exactly what I was after! Thanks for you effort in looking into this!
×