Jump to content

wigglepixel

Members
  • Content count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wigglepixel

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.wigglepixel.nl

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : Utrecht, The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sorry Ben, your reactions are so fasts that you didn't even take the time to let words sink in and try to understand and embrace what the point is here and why a customer puts time in this to help you help us. It seems to me you are missing the points we are making completely and only try to defend something while there's not even an attack. I was trying to help you help us and to get to you that some customers don't ask things just because they can, but actually have some good reasons for it and maybe have some experience too. All I read from you on this is 'can't do', but I don't see any solutions or things to get closer to a solution from you. It gives me the strong feeling you believe strongly everything in Affinity is already perfect and great and you're just not open to critisizm. I'm sorry. This to me is really a non-argument. Not everybody uses software the same way, not everybody reports, not everybody is an advanced user and not everybody was even aware this was happening and times are changing. This could even be a strong hint the other direction: maybe it wasn't even clear to people this was even possible. I stop participating in this discussion now. I don't feel heard and get the strong feeling you're not open to any suggestion or way to get us closer to a solution to make your product better on this part. I have other things to do too.
  2. @Ben I wonder, do we really need two different rotation points? Having just one would solve all above problems in my opinion. Wouldn't all this be a lot easier, clearer, less confusing and more consistent if there would only be just one rotation point? Which per default should be the object's center, but can be moved by the user to a different location. Then we don't need modes or visible/invisible anymore (which are obviously causing confusing right now). And if there would be a 'reset rotation point to object's center' button to reset a moved rotation-point to the object's center we can have everything, but much simpler and less confusing I think. In my opinion that way everything would be clear to the user, it wouldn't be overly complicated and confusing, keep the interface clean, be consistent and we don't have any problems with modes and visibility on/off is easy 'cause there's only one point. We just have one rotation point, we can move it and reset it to the center. I believe that way we could do everything we want and keep things clean. What do you think?
  3. I agree. On second thought it's no improvement to have two toggles. That would definitely help and fix the most important issue here. Thanks I think it perfectly makes sense the rotation point rotates and moves with the objects center rotation as it's build now. Also from a developers point of view. So no problem with that and I would expect that too. The point I was trying to make is that we can't see that this rotation center is actually moving, because when rotating the object around itself, the custom rotation point is hidden. Therefore I suggested to make the custom rotation point visible (maybe as some semi transparent ghosting, some other icon or something else) while rotating the object around itself. That way designers can always see and are informed that the custom rotation point is moving and to which point. Just to hint the designer the point is changing and so to prevent confusion. Because we only see that the custom rotation point has moved when going to the other mode. Which can be on some other day with us forgetting we moved it. I think that it can be confusing, because we changed something we were maybe not aware of. Would this perhaps be possible? The other thing I tried to get across is that there is no visible rotation point when in 'rotate around object center'-mode. I can understand why you did this (to show the mode we're in) but it feels inconsistant to me and it would be great to know where the rotation point is in that mode too. When designing it would help to see the rotation point in every mode, also when rotating around itself. It's not always that clear where that point is. It would be great if there would be some way to visualise that point in the viewport. Would it be possible to show the 'center' point in the viewport too (only in that mode ofcourse)? Perhaps with some other symbol than the custom centerpoint-symbol to still know the mode we're in from the viewport?
  4. That's unfortunate. Maybe I put too definite words in my post that make me hit a wall with you and therefore failed to get my points across. I hope you understand I am trying to let you know, as a user and a customer, the best I can, what I found on this and where the workflow is lacking in my opinion, and how to make the product even better with an idea for a solution. [edit] But the way it is build right now we ARE rotating around an invisible point. That's exactly part of the points I'm making here (see previous post). It seems like somehow we're not on the same page here Somehow I obviously failed to get my points across to let you understand what mean. This is not about me misunderstanding the interface, but rather it seems we have a different opinion about how the interface on this matter should be. In my opinion in the current interface some things aren't lined up as I would expect and could be improved. But I think it's not very effective to repeat my previous posts. It's all said above. Because I already wrote two posts above to explain myself I am not sure how to write things differently to get my points across. I can only hope you to really read and try to understand my posts, you ask me if something isn't clear and that you are open to professional customers' opinions. Please understand I am asking this to help eachother. I could also leave out my concerns here if that's not appreciated. But I hope you're open to suggestions and customers' views. Could you please re-read my post and tell me which part isn't clear? I'm happy to explain. Thanks!
  5. Thanks for your fast response @Sean P. It could indeed be a useful extra functionality to be able to do both, but than the tooltip on the button is not right and there is a lack of functionality the way it is build now. To me this is pretty counterintuitive and confusing. The button now says 'Show Rotation Center'. That's odd to me, because 'Show' implies that we show or hide the center point in the viewport with this button. But instead it's also toggling the rotation mode and causes some states to be impossible to be in. For example: how can we hide the rotation center and still rotate around our custom rotation center? It's not possible like this. Or how can we show the rotation center and rotate around the objects center? Sorry, the way it is build rightnow is just weird to me and not a very intuitive design and different than all other software I know of. It feels messy. I would expect the interface to be instead: - One toggle to show or hide the rotation point (that is currently active in the current rotation-mode) - One toggle to switch the rotation-mode, so between 'rotate around custom center' and 'rotate around objects center' Then we... - Can show and hide the rotation point independently of the mode (which obviously isn't possible right now). So we can also hide the rotation point and still rotate around our custom center or show the rotation point and still rotate around the objects center. - Can switch the visibility of the center independently of the mode - Don't get confused by the wrong text in the tooltip-text and can see the state of the mode and visibility directly in the interface. And also be more aware that we are actually rotating our own custom rotation point when we rotate in the 'object center'-mode. Which can be very confusing when we are not aware that there are actually two different modes and we cannot see the custom rotation center move with the object when we rotate in object-center mode, because than the custom point is always invisible. - Can also view the rotationpoint in the viewport when the mode is set to 'rotate around center' and that's a very welcome and wanted visibility Also rightnow there is no visible indication our custom rotation center is actually being rotated when we rotate the object in 'object center'-rotation-mode. That is confusing. It would be nice if there would be some indication of our custom point changing /rotating with the object. Rightnow we can't see that and get confused if we switch to the 'custom center'-mode where suddenly the custom center point has moved to a different location in the viewport.
  6. When trying out the new Point Transform Tool and move the rotation center of an object I bumped into the following issue: The 'Show Rotation Center' checkbox influences the rotationpoint: when enabled it's rotating around the new custom rotation center which is what I would expect, but when disabled rotation is suddenly around the center of the object (?) and so ignores the custom rotation center completely. (Also as a side effect of this when rotating the object with 'show rotation center' turned off, we seem to even rotate the rotation center without even knowing it. Which is pretty confusing, because suddenly our rotation point is somewhere on a completely different location than where we just set it) As shown in the video below: rotation-center-weird.mp4
  7. Yes, SVGO, the underlying framework that does this, is great. But this goes with a warning: it can break your svg's if you don't know what you're doing. Minifying is not always without cost. It all depends on how you set your options. It changes your svg structure and can delete parts of your svg and round values causing your svg to visually change. Stating this 'cleans' and 'fixes' svgs is just not right and can even be the other way around too.
  8. I agree with you it would be pretty welcome to have a possibility to add a 'hard' shadow we can color ourselves. As you wrote it's way too much work to do that manually now. It would be pretty 'convenient' to have a feature like this to be used for flatstyle illustrations and designs too. But I would like the result to be vector graphics though (Right now, unfortunately, most if not all effects in that panel are raster-effects), otherwise I would never us it on svg.
  9. wigglepixel

    Im new here :)

    I can tell you're working on Windows
  10. wigglepixel

    Jaguar E-Type Lightweight (AD)

    Wow, this is just incredible! You all did this with Affinity? Not even a 3D modelling program? Crazy
  11. wigglepixel

    SVG

    @raphaelbolius MEB's answer is pretty on point here. You need real vectors to have a size-benefit on the filesize. But be aware that svg's not always are smaller in filesize as its raster counterpart. It really depends on the graphics you are working with. Some graphics are smaller when saved as jpg. General rule of thumb: the more complex your vector-graphics are, the less profit you have from saving as svg. But that said: real svg vectorgraphics always remain sharp on all screen resolution and zoom levels. There's also a difference between SVGs. You can optimize SVGs too. If you have some technical knowledge, search on google for SVGO. You can compress your svg's a lot in some cases. But as @MEB said, they need to be real vectors. Not raster. BTW If you like to know more about rastergraphics vs vectorgraphics and the differences between them, I wrote a blog about it that might help you: https://www.wigglepixel.nl/en/blog/whats-the-difference-between-raster-and-vector-graphics/ Hope this helps
  12. Not sure what you're asking here exactly. Do you want soft shadows? Hard shadows? You can create soft shadows directly in the Effects panel ('outer shadow'), but I guess when you need hard shadows it's indeed a matter of copying and merge layers and give it a shadow color.
  13. @GabrielM Some of the exported attributes in the <svg> aren't even nececary and redundant. Could your developers look into that too please as we like to keep our online svg's as small as possible?! Thanks!
  14. Thanks a lot for your compliments, likes and views guys. Next part will be about a very interesting time in history... when the computer-age really got started! ... without that part of history nothing we use today in computer graphics and games would even exist! So no Affinity would be here if this part of history would be missing... Watch this space! @Alfred @Madame @Roger C @GarryP @Wosven @A_B_C @WatcherMagic
  15. wigglepixel

    charactering mood

    Great work! Love it
×