Jump to content

MattyWS

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Maybe not your target audience being directly "game developers" but game development also uses photography very strongly. This is a photography suite and an image manipulation software, software used to edit and create RGBA, but sadly 1/4 of that is awkward to work with. Would you really suggest photography for game development isn't photography at all, and thus not the target audience? As the person above, I'm not trying to be harsh but "not our target audience" is quite a poor excuse for software being awkward to use. There's more industries out there other than game development that also need the use of alpha channels including photographers. If I can't use Affinity to edit my photo sourced textures (which is photography, which is your target audience) then I'd have to use photoshop... I'd rather use Affinity but like many, many others I simply can't yet. If I'm wrong then please could you elaborate on who is the target audience if photographers aren't? At any rate there is an absolutely huge market to tap into, which can only mean customers and more money toward Affinity and I don't see a downside to catering to this.
  2. Is there any way to get a dev voice on this so we know it's something being looked into (or not being looked into) because it is a burden and it's a basic feature that people need to use every day. Even just a quick post from a dev saying "we are listening and will be looking into channel editing in the future" or "no this is not the direction we want to take the software, we prefer difficult channel editing."
  3. Yes please, no one cares about how affinity channels are stored in code, people just want to be able to edit the alpha channels with ease.
  4. Yea I said a while back that it doesn't matter what you call them, they're basically all the same and should be treated the same. The problem we all have is the difficulty editing alphas, masks and individual channels both in ease and consistency. R C-R seems to have a habit of going into threads about legitimate problems for users who want to help better the software and suggesting there is no reason to change the software. Last time I saw this was regarding targa editing where R C-R was the only solution is to use AP and some other software to convert file formats instead of... Improving AP by adding a widely used file format. Anyway, there really is no reason not to improve this part of AP. There is no excuse or reason it 'needs' to stay the same and one of the devs did chime in to this discussion to say it's not high priority (though for us it is but I imagine the devs have data on what the vast majority of users want to see improved first). I myself have only few problems so far with AP and the devs are working hard at improving the software so for that I'm thankful and I appreciate it. We want to be able to use the affinity line of applications, we want it to be the best software. Photoshop probably didn't have game development in mind either but they've since embraced it. I know it has 'photo' in the name but in the end, affinity photo is just an image manipulation software and it'll be used for photography, generally painting artwork, graphic design, game development and TV production. I don't know which of these categories have more users but honestly I'd embrace the many industries that can use the software. No need to fight against potential improvements.
  5. It doesn't matter really what you call them, masks and each R G B and A channels or whatever other channel should really be treated the same IMO and you could be able to edit them all on an individual basis with the regular tools in the application. Make selections, paint from black to white and anything in between, copy/paste etc. and the process of exporting should be maybe more open ended for the users to choose how things are exported. I understand each file format has very unique features though but editing the basic RGBA shouldn't be complicated, difficult or confusing.
  6. This probably isn't the case but... Can any of the devs for Affinity confirm if adobe has patents on this or anything else that you've had to make an awkward workaround for? Or patents that stop you from implementing entire essential features? I mean, it's probably not the case but if Affinity Photo can't be used in a simple manner to edit alpha channels just because of adobe patents then I'd have to drop Affinity...
  7. Can confirm, I just did it on windows, now have a shortcut key set up to switch between photo and designer.
  8. StudioLink is pretty great, but I've also found the workflow "File>Edit in..." to be a great one. I switch between photo and designer quite a bit. If you have both applications open it's really fast to switch between. I would really love a shortcut key for this as well... for example if I'm in Photo and press I dunno... F9 and it switches to designer and in designer F9 to switch to Photo. It'd save me going to "File>Edit in" every time
  9. to the Devs (hey it's me again about to talk TGA and alpha channels, sorry). I gave some time for TGA format to be implemented before fully testing, As it stands I don't think it's working as intended, or if it is then yous really need to think about making some changes. I'll start by saying what I've said before, channel packing is a necessity in games (and tv). At the moment Affinity Photo can't be used for this which is still a deal breaker. At the moment the way it needs to work is that the channels Red, Blue, Green and Alpha should just be editable black and white masks which do not affect each other. What Affinity Photo has at the moment is exactly that between red, blue and green channels, then the alpha channel goes and derps it all up by erasing the information on all other channels (where the alpha is black) when you save the image out (in my case as a TARGA file). This is absolutely the opposite of what is needed. When I save my image, I expect all 4 channels to stay intact in my TGA file. As it is now is still unusable. In fact I did a test by making an RGBA file in photoshop and saving out as tga, loading into affinity photo and saving, reopening the file again in photoshop to show you the difference; On the left you have the original, on the right you have what Affinity Photo did to the image (removing rgb information with the alpha) Basically what I'm saying is, Affinity Photo destroys images when using alpha channels. Is there something I'm missing here? This seems like a bug more than anything.
  10. +1 for scripting, it's a must have feature for game devs and probably one of the major reasons companies would never use AP over PS since there are pipelines in place in a lot of studios for saving textures out. Especially when using CryEngine/Lumberyard. Python would also be my choice language as it's used in so many other applications (blender, maya etc).
  11. I came here to say thank you for adding TGA export! The only thing missing now is the ability export with the alpha channel but either way I'm glad there is progress on this front! A lot of people are happy it's being implemented.
  12. There's a few topics on this aready and they said no to TARGA support being in 1.7 but now 1.7 is out I'd also like an update on this.
  13. Then I'm very sad, ending up randomly with 100.4% zoom level by design... Does this not trigger anyone's OCD? the image is slightly blurry at these values. I'm much rather the mouse wheel zoom snap to exact, specified numbers instead of multiples of odd decimal values. Is there a reason this is by design? It looks like the mouse wheel behaves differently to manually zooming with the zoom tool (or ctrl+=/ctrl+-), is that correct? If so would it not be better to behave the same? the zoom tool zooms to exact values of 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500 etc. If the reason the mouse wheel behaves differently is to allow smaller increments of zooms I'd still prefer the numbers were rounded to plus or minus 5's, 10's and 25's rather than out of place numbers. If you really want to be zooming in specifically from 122.9 to 153.6 or 98.3 instead of 125 to 150 or 100 then I think you'd be in the minority, but I seem to be the only one making this observation so maybe I'm the crazy one here. At any rate I think I've done all I can to point this out, I guess my request is I'd prefer decent values when zooming. It's very much up to you guys as the developers to decide what to do though and I respect your decision either way. ^^
×
×
  • 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.