Alfred

I don’t see how you can ‘align’ to an increment or decrement, so I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

It should be *=phi instead of =*phi.

If not an alignment to the pixel grid, what is the forced alignment? To my (seemingly erroneous!) way of thinking, ‘Force Pixel Alignment’ means that an object being moved the smallest distance from x = 2.7 will end up at x = 3 (i.e. 0.3 px from its original position). It won’t end up at x = 2 (because that’s a move of 0.7 px) and it won’t end up at x = 2.5 (because that’s off the pixel grid). ‘Move By Whole Pixels’ means, at minimum, a move from x = 2.7 to x = 1.7 or x = 3.7.

Is it “not a lot of people” or is it common? I’m afraid I don’t see how it can be both!

Perhaps you could upload a screen recording. Record the screen on your iPhone, iPad or iPod touch

Chill, perhaps?

What I mean is that ‘Force Pixel Alignment’ should ensure whole number pixel coordinates, but ‘Move By Whole Pixels’ takes precedence if enabled. The two options are mutually exclusive except where the coordinates are already whole numbers.

8 GB is recommended, but it isn’t specified as a minimum system requirement. https://affinity.serif.com/photo/full-feature-list

I’ve never used Windows 11 and I haven’t used Windows 7 in many years, but I can’t say I’ve noticed any adverts in Windows 10 Home or Pro.

Thanks, Walt, I missed that! As you obviously realized, I read it as “bloated [and] riddled mess” instead of “bloated, ad-riddled mess”.

No, I didn’t miss it, I just felt it wasn’t essential to the point I was trying to make.

Did you have a particular reason for getting rid of the word ‘riddled’ in the process? I’m not (and never have been) a Linux user, but I suspect that you meant to turn it into something like this: Having said that, I’ve no idea what @spicyramentt wanted to suggest Windows is riddled with.

Why the parenthetical remark, Garry? Surely the whole point of ‘Rasterize to Mask’ is that the layer in question will be converted to bitmap if necessary.

You’re certainly not alone, but having said that … … this shouldn’t be a problem if your Snapping options are set up correctly. Discussed here:

Scattare uno screenshot su Mac

Is this related to another issue that you’ve raised? If so, please provide a link to the relevant thread.

If you want to request a new feathering option, you need to describe what it is that you can’t do (or can’t do efficiently) with the existing tools/commands. However, this Beta Software area is not the correct place to do that.

You need to make sure that ‘Move By Whole Pixels’ is disabled in your Snapping settings. Counterintuitively, it overrides ‘Force Pixel Alignment’ when both are enabled.

A swatch is a coloured square. A palette is a collection of swatches.

Click on the ellipsis (‘…’) in the top right-hand corner of the post in question, choose ‘Share’ from the menu that appears there, copy the URL from the box that pops up and then paste that URL into your forum post:

Per the original post to this thread: As the latest addition, it’s at the bottom of the list (after the Spiral Tool).

I see. I thought the discussion had widened to include other types of plugins such as the ‘Automation’ plugins that you mentioned.

I think I knew that! (I do wonder, however, whether even as many as half of them are bothered by the lack of this feature.)

No, just one Gradient Studio would suffice. We don’t need three million of them!

I’d love to keep your hopes alive, but I feel I should point out that Serif PhotoPlus only ever supported ‘Effects’ plugins.