Potential rasterize issue: ignores anti-aliasing settings

[NotMyFault]

Hi,

 

not sure if this by design or a bug:

• rasterize ignores the layers anti-aliasing settings and coverage map
• Expected behavior: rasterize follows anti-aliases settings, in this case: off to get pixelated edge pixels.
• Observation: rasterize results in partial transparent anti-aliased edge pixels
   
• Workaround: using "merge visible" gives correct result (but rasterizes visible layers vs. individual layer).
• Side note: Document>Flatten seems to use "merge visible" and delete all old layers, giving the expected result.

 

Rasterize ignores anti-aliasing off.afphoto

[MEB]

Hi @NotMyFault,
This is a known issue that's already with development.
Thanks for your support.

[Fist of the mighty Bob]

This is still a bug in V2. Absolutely horrible when working with pixel art.

[NotMyFault]

bump

 

[NotMyFault]

Bump

[MEB]

Thanks @NotMyFault. Issue bumped/updated.

[Affinityconfusesme]

bump.

[GarryP]

5 hours ago, tzvi20 said:

bump.

Once a problem has been given a tracking tag, the little A?-XXXX) tag beside the thread name, then it’s been logged in Serif’s bug/suggestion tracking system and waiting to be prioritised before (potentially) being worked on:

In these cases, there’s no need to add ‘bumping’ posts as it’s already something that they know about and hope to get round to when possible.

Adding further useful information probably won’t hurt but simply ‘bumping’ won’t do anything to help, and may actually hurt your cause:

[NotMyFault]

Every rule needs to be interpreted.

I bump unfixed but still relevant issues in the following circumstances:

• no tag has been assigned yet.
• Major releases came out (V2) and does not contain a fix. I want to avoid that issues raised in V1 get forgotten, especially as older posts where moved to „archive“.
• roughly once a year, but only in case I stumbled over the same issue again, either in my own edits or when other users posted issues which relate to the issue. Other users may simply open new bug reports, and often the symptoms do not lead to the issue easily.
• I fully agree that at least 12 month should pass before bumping again.
• Other users (not the user who reported the bug) are affected by the same issue, you may leave a polite +1 or „I’m affected too“, or simply follow the thread. Those additional reports are relevant so Affinity gets an indication how many reports about the same issue occour. But please avoid bumping in too short time periods to avoid the „nagging“ clause mentioned by GarryP.

I love the Affinity forum for the very respectful and polite culture in general.

[Bit Disappointed]

I am rather fond of the theory that customers should not even make known their needs, so that Serif may remain blissfully unaware of the demand for a feature or a correction of a bug for their PRIORITISATION.

Oh, hold on... no, no, I do not like that theory. Not at all. 😡

But thousands of utterly trivial posts in this forum are, curiously enough, esteemed and meaningful? Well, that is also the manner in which matters are conducted in professional environments.

HALT! No, wait, that is not at all how things are done in professional environments. Not in the slightest.

So, yes, I am also a party interested in the fix of AF-1241.

[NotMyFault]

Another user impacted

 

[MEB]

Thanks NotMyFault. I've updated/bumped the log yet again.