Jump to content

MattyWS

Members
  • Content count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. 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.
  2. 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. ^^
  3. Hi, I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I couldn't find it from a quick search. Basically, zooming in and out with the mouse wheel you'd expect the zoom levels to snap to 100% and logical numbers (like 5%, 10% or 25% differences etc) but sometimes the zoom level goes to things like 96% instead of 100% forcing me to have to change the zoom value manually to 100 again. I'm on the latest stable version of Affinity photo. I can't be the only one irritated by this inconsistency. I know it sounds minor but it's super annoying. It seems to only be with mouse wheel while right clicking and clicking zoom in/zoom out use decent values. I looked in preferences but couldn't find anything related to it. EDIT; attached an image of what I mean, just some screenshots showing the kind of zoom values you get from using the mouse wheel. The most annoying part is you may not even be using the zoom tool at the time meaning you have to switch to the zoom tool just to set it back to a decent value like 100%. The blurryness in the photo is because I took the second screenshot while cropping the first so you can see how it looks when the zoom isn't perfect.
  4. I know this is an old topic but I noticed mirror/symmetry mode in affinity photo lately and it reminded me of this. Every day as a game artist I make tiling textures and it would be absolutely amazing to have a wrap mode in affinity photo for editing/hand painting tiling textures. Krita's implementation of wrap mode is perfect, however to me that's one of Kritas only useful features and I'd like to be able to have this in Affinity photo where I made all of my edits to textures. My typical workflow would be to start off in zbrush/substance designer to create my maps (albedo, normal, height, roughness etc) and sometimes do final manual tweaks to the textures in photoshop which also doesn't have a wrap mode, so I end up having to offset and edit constantly. wrap mode is the dream... I don't know how much work it would be to implement to affinity photo but it would certainly go a long way in getting game developers to notice Affinity.
  5. You misunderstand me, I already stated that I don't think they are bad at their jobs, quite the opposite, my point was that I don't think they'd make it hard for themselves and that I'm sure they are working in a smart way. The way you worded your statement that I was quoting made it sound like you think it's possible they were developing in such a way that they'd have problems implementing new things that they likely knew they were going to implement. I can't imagine the formats they support now are the only formats they ever plan on supporting, thus they must have a functional or smart way of implementing more. My other point being that even though they probably do have a smart way of implementing new things like that, they probably don't have the man power to focus on that right now. I was purely complimentary the whole time and I'm being optimistic, so I apologise if you thought I was trying to be insulting here, maybe I could have worded my reply is a different manner. I'm not amazing at social interactions so if I say something that sounds like I'm trying to be a d*ck, I'm genuinely not intending to be and I harbour no ill feelings toward you. Yes TGA isn't the only format used in games, but it's still widely used because it's basic and works with everything game devs need it for. The reason people are asking for TGA in Affinity is because Affinity doesn't have many alternatives. TIFF was recommended but not supported by Unreal, PNG was suggested but not great for transparency, this may have been a photoshop problem but you couldn't edit an alpha channel directly, it was stored as transparency and thus leaves little control over the colours in the image and the transparency or alpha channel we may need to use. So the formats we can use start to dwindle when there isn't much to choose from in APhoto. With regards to the trial, like I said I wasn't pinning blame on anyone for me buying the software as I use it for stuff, but it was an unpleasant surprise that caught a fair few off guard. I am in no way saying I was scammed or regret my purchase. I love APhoto and I want more features so the software can grow and become better! @Patrick Connor interesting question, as I come from using photoshop from what I always thought about the format was 24bit meant RGB and 32bit allowed for RGBA (when saving out, if you had an alpha channel and chose 24bit it would simply save without the alpha channel) As for usage, in terms of transparent textures that use RGBA, the alpha channel would be a black and white mask as normal, you wouldn't see any transparency in photoshop (or APhoto) like you would a png or something, you'd only see the colours normally and an alpha channel with it's mask. in terms of VFX sometimes each channel (RGBA) might be used to hold 4 black and white effects in each channel. Naturally if you are using the alpha channel you'd want to be able to save out as RGBA (32bit) but if you aren't using the alpha channel you'd expect to be able to save out as just RGB (24 bit). editing individual channels is a must. The uses this has is; Saving RGB as normal coloured images or individual masks Saving as RGBA for textures that might have height maps (for parallax, or tessellation or even blending textures together in game) Saving as RGBA for coloured images that might need alpha (GUI, foliage cards) Saving as RGBA for vfx as each channel for an individual mask MyClay just ninja'd my post.
  6. You can assume they've been bad software architects if you want, I'm still choosing to believe it's lack of man power as opposed to limitations of their own software as a reason for not implementing it fast. The devs are skilled people, I doubt they'd start a fresh only to accidentally limit themselves like that (especially since Serif is only 5 years younger than Adobe). There's maybe only 70 ish people at serif, not all devs, across 3 applications including iOS versions so I imagine they've very stretched. That's fine though. I can wait for TGA support but I wouldn't mind an answer from the devs even to say "yea at some point we will add it in but not anytime soon" rather than wondering will they or wont they.
  7. I could make those icons in less than an hour, I'd be extremely happy to do that for free if Serif would let me. Realistically though implementation of TGA would be fairly straight forward (I think it's only a few hundred lines of code) but admittedly most of the time would be spent on QA I think (which I'd also happily give up my spare time for testing file formats if they released an alpha or as experimental features). Either way though it's not a big ask, you're blowing it out of proportion a bit by saying it'll take so much development time but I do agree there are other things like bug fixes they could be focusing their time on more. As a feature though I would say supporting various file formats should be considered high priority. As you said it's a feature that other free programs do for free... but I paid £50 for this one expecting (like many others) TGA to be an obvious feature and again like many others I was pretty surprised to find it not supported. Why did I expect TGA support I suppose you ask? Well on the windows store where I purchased it I saw this; "Work with all standard formats like PNG, TIFF, JPG, GIF, SVG, EPS, EXR, HDR and PDF" little did I know that that meant it only supported exactly those formats and WMF ... But TGA is a standard format so I was a little confused after my purchase, since that "like" part kind of insinuated a bit more. I'll admit though that's on me for being a little assuming. To be clear though I am in no way insulting the devs or pinning blame on them for anything, like I said I get that development time can be slow with a small team but I am still going to voice my opinion that TGA support is a must and I really hope they hear it. EDIT: When I said I think it was only a few hundred lines of code; https://github.com/madebr/libtga/blob/master/src/tgawrite.c
  8. Thanks @Patrick Connor It seems TGA from what I understand is a relatively easy format to read/write, do you know why support for importing TGA was added without export at the same time? It seems like such a trivial amount of work for a huge gain. Regarding the roadmap, is the first post updated regularly? it says at the bottom "after 1.5" but we are well past that now so it's a little vague.
  9. Of course adding TGA wouldn't meet everyones needs, it's not the only feature stopping people from using Affinity. It is one of many important features needed to meet peoples needs. But it is still a needed feature and if I'm honest, it's a small ask. By no means at all is support for a widely used image format "baggage" either. Not sure why you would think it is. Maybe it's the mentality "if I don't use a feature, it's pointless to have". I don't use .raw file formats but I still understand the need for that in APhoto. I don't use .TIFF but it's still a feature, should I consider TIFF support to be bloating APhoto with useless stuff? Of course not, people use it even if I don't. And a lot of people use TGA. There are features I would like that I know are legacy, so I don't ask for it, like the support for (Indexed Palette images (because I still mod a game that's 21 years old). A feature like that I might consider niche enough for Serif not to bother with even if I want it. TGA on the other hand, is used widely today in games and apparently TV. It's the format of choice for many studios. I push for TGA support not only because I really would love and need it, but also because as a customer, I'd like to know Serif listens and are willing to look into things customers are asking for. If the stance of TGA support is "nah, use something else to convert to TGA" then Serif isn't the kind of company I want to support or work with. Thankfully though I think even if they haven't said anything yet, I feel they can see the growing number of people asking for TGA. The staff at serif is small and stretched across 3 products so I know it can be slow development time, but I'd rather that than no development at all.
  10. I do get what you're saying, but that isn't really a valid argument in a forum specifically for Affinity software. I mean, why use Affinity photo at all when I could use other applications. Why does Serif even develop Affinity photo when we should just use other applications to do the job we need? Photoshop is a one stop shop for all my needs but it's hard to justify paying so much for it monthly. Affinity photo is cheap one off payment and in all honesty if Affinity photo were 10 times more expensive I'd still prefer to buy it over paying subscription to photoshop if only it could do the things I need it to do, like export the formats I use. We are all here because we like Affinity products and of course we would rather use affinity photo alone rather than with random other little applications to do small basic tasks. Affinity will develop over time, I just hope for the features I need it for to be developed too eventually. If you could have in your kitchen; a) a coffee machine that makes all the drinks you like or b) a coffee machine that makes all your drinks apart from 1, then another coffee machine that only makes that 1 drink, leaving you with 2 machines would you not choose option A?
  11. Definitely yes. All of the companies I've worked at replied heavily on scripts for photoshop and wouldn't be able to do that in Affinity Photo.
  12. SrPx, You may have misunderstood my use of the word "defensive" here, I'm not referring specifically to you and I don't mean it in an offensive way so I apologise if you took offence, it's many other people saying similar things. And my needs are by no means niche, my workflow is pretty common in my industry, and it's a pretty huge industry. It's not so much specifically about TGA support that I meant people were being defensive about either, it's a lot of functional features people want or need that Affinity doesn't provide which photoshop does. Other than obviously being a newer software and limited staff there's no reason not to include features people ask for, which is why I say I'm not sure why there's resistance. It's the fact that the devs have stated there no plans for that added functionality that leaves me wondering if investing in APhoto is pointless or not, if they pick and choose what features they think I need, regardless of what I actually need. And again, not just my needs, the needs of many. I'm under no illusion, it takes time to develop this kind of application and I appreciate that but if they don't plan on adding features then I guess I don't plan on making the switch from photoshop. There's no loss to Affinity if I dont use Aphoto though I guess since I already purchased the software. I can wait as long as needed for the software to become even greater.
  13. Thanks! At the risk of going off topic from this thread, I know there are plenty of work arounds using multiple softwares, but surely Aphoto, the application literally made for opening, editing and saving images should be able to do that basic function. But right now what you have if you want to use tga is the ability to open, edit and... Not save. Extremely basic functionality that I paid for the software for (which admittedly didn't think was going to be a problem since I assumed it was basics). And the stance right now by the devs is they don't really care about it. And then you get the defensive people coming in and saying "use all these other applications to convert" - but I shouldn't have to for something that basic. Obviously tga support is one of many, many features people want and need and I understand there may be limited staff working on lots of other things. I praise Serif for affinity photo as I truely do like it. I feel my fight to get TGA sport is being met with a wall of negativity with devs even basically saying "no one needs it" apart from the huge games and tv industry... I'm not really sure why there is so much resistance to the idea of adding basic functionality to save files in commonly used formats... I feel that kind of "nah, you don't need it" attitude really gets under my skin a little... It's not just me asking for this simple feature, there's whole threads on it. I'm not a horrible person I swear! :p I sound like I'm angry ranting but all I want is for the software to improve and become more useful, and to be able to confidently tell people "hey, use this awesome new application if you don't want to use Photoshop". Heck I could use gimp, I'm not going to because I subscribe to CC and I paid £75 for APhoto so either way I can do whatever I need. I'm not reliant on APhoto So everything I say really is just me trying to help improve the software. On that note, I can't make the switch from Photoshop yet knowing there's a few missing features with no work around that doesn't involve using random other software... In that case I'll stick to Photoshop where I can do all the things I need in one application instead. I'm eagerly looking for reasons to make that switch though as many other people are. I have the money to keep paying for Photoshop no problem but I do believe they take advantage of the situation by being the dominant application with no real competition, charging a lot of money where they shouldn't. I'm hoping Aphoto will be the competition we all need.
×