Annabella_K

In Affinity Designer, brushes use raster textures. Is there an indicator anywhere that shows the maximum brush size? To know above what size will the texture get blurry at the given dpi. Often what looks good on screen prints terribly, so it would be good to know beforehand. I assume it could be calculated based on the texture image's px size if nothing else. But I don't know where to find it and how to do the math. I hope this makes sense. I'm having trouble translating my thoughts into English. 😅

+1
User variables need to be global. Or have a way to be set to global. The way it's designed now doesn't really make sense from a user's perspective. If I wanted to add something to only one export, I would only type it directly in the path and wouldn't set up a variable for it. That's an extra step. One would rightfully assume that the variables are global.

I think it makes sense to have per page Layers too. But there should be global layers. Though I think what I miss about global layers is different from what people mentioned in this thread before. When I export to PDF, I just don't want to have the same layer from a Master page 200 times in the document. I want to switch them on/off with one click - I mean in the PDF viewer too.
@keith s could you tell me a practical example of the global layer use you mentioned? I'm relatively new to DTP software and all I know is master pages, I use the method @walt.farrell mentioned above for everything. Though sometimes the logistics need a lot of thinking.

+1

Try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=Maximum+brush+sizes+in+Designer? +site:forum.affinity.serif.com
 
 
 

I am not sure I understand what you are asking for, but for the Vector Brush Tool, if you double-click on a brush in the Brushes panel, in the window that opens you should see in the Stroke tab at the bottom on the far right the total number of pixels in the raster texture's width. So for example, for the 1st Acrylics brush, there is this:

+1 That feature would be so helpful!
 
I have a workaround that can work in some cases, but it has serious limitations. But maybe it helps someone.
- I create a new document with the same size artboard (so I can copy the elements in place)
- I copy&paste all the instances I want to change to that other document (I like to keep the originals in case I need to go back, so I just hide them. See cons.)
- Modify the symbol and rename it on the layers panel (This way all the instances get renamed.)
- Copy them back to the original document. They become a new symbol on the Symbols panel.
 
Cons:
- It only works for one symbol. For example if you have Symbol A and Symbol B and you want to change some instances of both to Symbol C, you can't. Since they both become new symbols (e.g. C and D).
- That's why, if you decide that you need to change some more instances, you need to redo the whole thing and do them all at once.
 
 

+1 That feature would be so helpful!
 
I have a workaround that can work in some cases, but it has serious limitations. But maybe it helps someone.
- I create a new document with the same size artboard (so I can copy the elements in place)
- I copy&paste all the instances I want to change to that other document (I like to keep the originals in case I need to go back, so I just hide them. See cons.)
- Modify the symbol and rename it on the layers panel (This way all the instances get renamed.)
- Copy them back to the original document. They become a new symbol on the Symbols panel.
 
Cons:
- It only works for one symbol. For example if you have Symbol A and Symbol B and you want to change some instances of both to Symbol C, you can't. Since they both become new symbols (e.g. C and D).
- That's why, if you decide that you need to change some more instances, you need to redo the whole thing and do them all at once.
 
 

+1
User variables need to be global. Or have a way to be set to global. The way it's designed now doesn't really make sense from a user's perspective. If I wanted to add something to only one export, I would only type it directly in the path and wouldn't set up a variable for it. That's an extra step. One would rightfully assume that the variables are global.

I love the advanced features of the Export persona and make extensive use of it.
One thing in particular I tend to use is the Path components in the additional properties of the export settings. Many times I would use it to export named folders with assets already in them.
However, I find the variables part of it, while really useful, have untapped potential. I'd like to see more variables that would help automate file naming (i.e "Document Name", "Artboard Name" etc.) + an ability to add custom document variables (currently there is an option to add user defined variables but they seem scoped to the current slice only which isn't really useful).
Hope you'll consider,
Ido

I fully understand why the roadmap was removed, but currently all affinity users are completely in the dark, this means they need to maintain subscriptions to adobe / others in order to use the tools they want, and they have to do so not knowing when / if Serif will ever implement feature X/Y

Essentially the roadmap should only be Key tools / features and should be a "this is what we are working on next" and it will be released when it is ready - rather than this feature will be released in version 1.x.x 

this could be done in the form of a dev blog of sorts - (common in the opensource community e.g godot dev blog)
To check in with the teams showing the community what serif is hard at work doing - because we know you are, we just have no clue what on - the only current way to see anything is to daily spam and check the beta thread - but even then that doesn't tell us about what's going on on the dev side for each app, I realise this is not open source, and there is proprietary and sensitive information that you may not want to share, but a little bit of info a teaser and a rough explanation of a concept might be cool. a lot of the things that Serif is doing already exists in a similar way - but maybe not as cool,

so for example lets say you were adding a filter type (before we knew what live filters were) you don't have to explain / show off the live side of the filter just, this week we are talking to Tim , he is part of the Photo Team and recently has been working on various ways to implement gaussian blur  - cue some maths and a rough explanation of what he has been up to maybe with an animated gif / video of examples.

I personally really like the Affinity Suite for a lot of reasons - but there are gripes about certain missing features / odd behaviours, if you check the forums there a LOT of threads about the same issues, with a lot of community support for implementation. e.g vector transform / perspective or DXF import / export.

without the implementation of plugins so people can program workarounds / or 3rd party solutions external from the affinity workflow I think a Roadmap (non encompassing and without hard promises) or a Dev blog showing what features are being developed internally (even if just a tease) would help the community to get behind the team more rather than just complaining it may also serve the purpose of allowing users to make decisions about what adobe licence to purchase length wise, if you know a tool is being developed and is "almost ready to go"  then perhaps that renewal of the Creative cloud can be skipped this month. it also would allow for some live feedback and comments to do with ui / implementation of said tool prior to being included in a beta.

just my opinion

A small update: 
Thanks to your tips and help the stitching on the boat seats have come out beautifully and my friend is really happy with me.

Thank you both so much! 😄 

Nice job @Marco Dude, you're welcome 😊

When I had that black line around pixel elements, that black border printed, even though zooming in all the way it disappeared as loukash said. So you better try printing it before you hand out the finish project. I figured it is because of anti-aliasing, so adding a white background can work, because then it's white the anti-aliasing tries to blend the colours with instead of transparent, which is kinda interpreted as grey it seems. That's why jpg worked I guess, but as loukash said, it comes with artifacts. But a white background is not always an option, so yeah, it's best to keep things as vectors if you can. Then the elements will be vector in the pdf too, and won't have that black line around them.

I miss that too. It would be nice to know if they are already working on something or plan to do it, even if they don't know when it will be ready. I also get that things often don't go as planned (especially with technology) and there can be delays. Not knowing is just frustrating. And no communication says they don't care about what people need even if that's not what they mean. I really enjoy Gumroad's approach, they keep people excited about their development. 😁

I miss that too. It would be nice to know if they are already working on something or plan to do it, even if they don't know when it will be ready. I also get that things often don't go as planned (especially with technology) and there can be delays. Not knowing is just frustrating. And no communication says they don't care about what people need even if that's not what they mean. I really enjoy Gumroad's approach, they keep people excited about their development. 😁

I miss that too. It would be nice to know if they are already working on something or plan to do it, even if they don't know when it will be ready. I also get that things often don't go as planned (especially with technology) and there can be delays. Not knowing is just frustrating. And no communication says they don't care about what people need even if that's not what they mean. I really enjoy Gumroad's approach, they keep people excited about their development. 😁

I miss that too. It would be nice to know if they are already working on something or plan to do it, even if they don't know when it will be ready. I also get that things often don't go as planned (especially with technology) and there can be delays. Not knowing is just frustrating. And no communication says they don't care about what people need even if that's not what they mean. I really enjoy Gumroad's approach, they keep people excited about their development. 😁

Hi @MEB It's not enough if it only changes vector shapes. In designer you can use raster brushes to add texture, so a transformer tool should be able to change the raster elements too.

Hehe, yes, as a foreigner, I totally agree. 😀 Sometimes it's really hard to find out how something is said in English. Google can give STRANGE results while I'm trying to figure it out. 😅

Many thanks for the steps provided @Annabella_K - I can confirm I've been able to replicate this issue using this information and therefore I'll get it logged as a bug with our developers now!
As you've mentioned, this only appears to affect preset page sizes and manually inputting the values is a useable workaround for the time being.
Many thanks once again

Looks like a bug number has already been assigned to this
 

There is a form of global layers already, since you can put the layer on a Master Page and apply that Master to document pages. And a document page can have multiple Master pages applied.
To turn off the layer, you just turn it off on the Master and it's gone on all the pages you applied that Master to.
However, there have been a number of requests for something more general than that, and you'll probably find them if you search for "global layer"

Hi. I am so happy with AP. It's sooo much better than the previous rival whom we don't mention...
There is only one feature I still miss and you've probably guessed what it is from the title of this post.
Sometimes I need to switch on/off features across several different pages and it would be great to have globally linked layers to do this, instead of needing to remember where the relevant linked features are in the document. An example is language translations. Often I need to do layouts with alternate languages and changing each page of a 50 page document is a chore.
I know, I could have a separate file for the other languages but global layers would be better.
Is there anything like this in the pipeline?
Cheers,
Tony

Hi @Dan C Thanks, this is interesting, I'll experiment