Feedback From a Xara User

[MattP]

e.g. If you want to create highlights and shadows on an object, you paint in RGB, instead of RGBA, and your brush strokes use the alpha of the underlying object. No need to clip them by setting up a complex hierarchy. The raster features in Designer are quite clumsy by comparison.

 

In Designer's Paintbrush Tool (Pixel Persona), just select 'Protect Alpha'. Done.  Not everybody works in the same way so I'm happy that you have found an application that works for you, but to start saying we're 'clumsy' because we don't do something that we do actually do is unfair. The whole point of the Affinity suite is that you match them all together and you have a FULL photo-editor inside a FULL vector editor - nobody else offers that. Designer is meant to be your vector illustration tool and raster starting-point. If you need more pixel-stuff, you need Photo and then just clicking one button toggles the document and all of its undo history into the other application. I thought that was quite compelling myself?

 

Seriously, have you seen Paolo's illustrations and paintings - he's more than a bit good and he owns just about every painting software in the world ever, so if he's using Affinity then I'll take that as a good sign... ;)

[rubs]

The interesting bit about this topic is where AD may already not be the best in all areas because it focuses so much on Adobe Illustrator. To be fair, that there are several points where I believe the AD guys did look at other apps instead of AI (e.g. the status bar displays tips much like Xara does, the default selection mode is the same as Corel/Xara/Inkscape/etc. instead of Adobe's), but it is a fact that other tools are so much better than AI in many aspects. We pointed out a few in this topic, and there are many great suggestions elsewhere in the forum.

 

So, to sum it up... which would be the way of choice for the AD team?

 

a. Value user feedback and review/improve tools and features to be the best/fastest/more efficient, even if they are not so AI-like.

b. The focus on being as much AI-like as possible (even if it's not the best/fastest/more efficient way) is more important.

[MattP]

To be utterly clear, we did things our own way and during our initial beta phase we changed substantial features and functionality to cater for user requests - and if you're wondering where our initial inspiration comes from, you're much better off looking at some of the conventions we actually introduced ourselves in DrawPlus over the years...

 

Our application is designed to be familiar to AI users, but it fundamentally does things in a more user-focused, more interactive and fun way.

[SrPx]

My 2c, first, a lot of software applications have good painting features, and I wouldn't call them applications for the illustration world (for the main professional purposes most illustrators would want it, that is). A huge quantity of the activity for an illustrator (I work doing exactly that, freelancer since some years) is for print as a target. Screen only work was said to take over, but I haven seen that happen as they predicted. If serves as data, my best work gigs in every sense are illustration that is one way or the other, going to be printed, as its major target (which BTW, adds an illustrator loads of very technical things to care about which aren't in screen-only). A software that only works in rgb or RGBA (I prefer RGBA by far for many reasons)  and that is focused in animations, covers a big area for illustration which is flash-like animations / games and animation for film (but then, those usually use very specific software, often in-house solutions or very high end software (a tad expensive, not affordable for inidividuals)) related business. But not really for print. Also, I know as I made quite some work for flash and similar technologies games, web games, as a profit thing besides my mid time work as a designer by then, which was already a tad lower than what you earn as an illustrator for print, did went stall since a  few years (not many years, but heavy fall). In the "good times" I'd do a game for web collaboration project with some great programmer friend, pull some bucks out of it (700 -1200 $ per game sold, a license for the many companies purchasing full games those times, that they'd monetize with ads/clicks of diverse nature) . That was a ton of work for 2 persons (1 coder, one artist), while then and now, an illustrator for print, if good (if is bad, nothing will bring even 25$) earns more. So, that preamble to mention about importance of fields and professional related features supported. Of course, there is people just handling Flash and doing animations for the web do earn truck loads of cash, as in real life there are rarely absolute numbers one way or the other, but in my experience and many colleagues' , is that in print illustration, while competition is brutally fierce, there's over saturation of illustrators, and very small demand of work, in vectors for animations or web games, the situation is even worse, way poorer, even !

 

If anything, I'd say that for an illustration package so that me and a lot of professionals to be considered as such, it must be prepared for serious color management work (indeed, this is crucial anyways, even if the target is screen only, just RGB profiles and management), be able to paint and work in CMYK mode (not only work in rgb and have only a proof test at the end, or simply a pdf/x export and that'd be it), convert to profiles, and all profiles in the market, export to PDF with the specs needed by the print companies, etc. This is built in AD and AP. Not in many FX or animation based tools, no matter how good they are for their main purpose. 

 

Also, while the workflow of many illustrators is just using vectors, and many for ads so only use AI, many others like me we do digital painting illustration, for realistic illustration, or humor /cartoon, matte painting, a huge etc. Or even for hyper realistic retouching. The number of illustrators using Photoshop and Corel Painter is *huge*. True that many others are vector based with AI and Corel Draw (and Xara, just all I know personally are using of the two first I mention. But am told in the UK is quite much more used.)  , but I'd say, illustrators using vector techniques, and the ones going raster, both types are massive. That said, is too much to be too rigid here: I do as well vector based illustration, and many people using AI or similar, do as well raster illustration. What i can tell you is that both, for print, will need CMYK and serious PDF workflows constantly. Even if some digital print companies would work with RGB and stuff, but...

 

About why is that convenient that AD makes users from AI should feel natural -even if noticing quite some differences- same as why have AP is kind of following certain standards that wouldn't make PS users feel like being in Mars. Well, market domination. Is absolutely too obvious that Adobe has every one and their dog using PS and AI. If you want to compete in the market, you need to welcome those huge masses. Heck...Is so basic...What business owner would deny to the starting or established business to get a massive user base ready to purchase like crazy, specially hating the rent-only situation which they have in the other side, and so massively exposed/detected as angry complaints in the whole internet?  Is even just a mere survival essential measure for a business. I am an Adobe user, but I don't get mad if I find a UI even 100% different. I handle like a glove Blender 3D and nothing is more radically different than that to my loved 3DS Max, which I used at work for years. Heck, everyone complains about its UI, and it was a hard learning UI in its day (today is way way easier, they improved that matter quite) , and so with many software apps. But there's an amazingly massive user base in companies and independent folks using those (PS and AI), it'd be plain dumb not to provide a sweet entrance to that crowd, whose purchases can decide heavily the future of the company, they wont get out their established app if find obstacles -we've been seeing several runs away here in the forum, already, for this very reason! not every one is that "tough" to give it a second and forth go to a new app-  a not very clever strategy for the company's survival, in my opinion, to make it harder for the more massive base. Even saying this while it seems the UI desired to be followed here by some users is more the XDP one, and I don't have any issues with that one: I have tested it (xdp, photo &graphic and layout versions (not web as I prefer all code)) in every new version, almost (the trial) and found it always very easy to assimilate and learn. But...More productive than Adobe's in the long, deep run for professional workflows ? Not that sure. Not stating anything, either, as IMO, to do so, any of us should have been like decades working with both, at a deep level in both, and be successful in both in an stressed production environment. I've only done so with Adobe PS and AI (and a long collection of mid cost and open source software). I only know what is totally obvious from a business/survival point of view. (the competitor is huge, gigantic user base, and tough itself enough as to make things easier for it to keep dominating like a king,  by going the route of not providing UIs similar to their standards. )

[Bri-Toon]

SrPx,

I find what you said in your third paragraph pretty neat in regards to the software you use for creating cartoons. In today's world, vector is the most crucial methods for modern cartoons. However, being a lover of the classics, I always think it's worth while experimenting. Someone I'm talking to on DeviantArt wants to create cartoons the traditional style (not saying that's what you're doing since I really don't know), and she too uses a lot of pixel tools. My point is, I envy you for going for your own style. I get that the market is very competitive, and what ever is fastest sells, though I do miss the traditional style. Reading this and then reading what my friend said, I wonder if it is slowly coming back.

 

We're probably getting a little off topic, but I'll just say this. I really like Designer for my work because of it having both pixel and vector tools. It is a great way to mimic traditional animation in a completely new approach. For the classic style, everything started out as pencil sketches and paper. For Designer, I can create realistic looking sketches without having to worry about the cost of paper and tools (that was a pretty big issue in the past). After all the sketches are done, I can use the vector tools to ink over them. Maybe even use gradients. It would take longer to animate, but that is the style I'm thinking to shooting for. It is practically the same style as in the past but on software.

[SrPx]

not saying that's what you're doing since I really don't know

 

Well... what I do when I do cartoons (Not animated. A bit long time since last one), is very similar to what I did for working so traditionally with color pencils /pastels or acrylics. Just raster drawing and painting in a kind of traditional way.   :)

But when I've done that is mostly illustration or comic, not really animation. Have done some bits of animation, and yep, entirely raster, the good old fashioned way. :D

 

Reading this and then reading what my friend said, I wonder if it is slowly coming back.

 

 

I actually believe it never really went away... Also, comic books got a reinforced boost some years ago and they're still having it, specially super heros and Manga genre, and a lot of those, of the men and women working for a salary doing that, or living out of commissions, still draw with traditional pencils and scan.  :)

 

Vectors are faster and cleaner than any traditional method. Indeed, one can actually draw very traditionally just being helped by the averaging of vectors and stabilization. Just shading is a tad different, but oil painting and acrylics, not really an option to shade animated characters. That's still fine and great for static great backgrounds. But those, for speed's sake, are now mostly done digitally, too.

 

When I was a teenager all my "graphics" were done with a blue ink pen. Even the shading , pencil style...

 

Today for doing animation I'd only go vectors. But again, I've just 2D animated for some games, besides animating pixel art. Not a pro in 2D animation working for a film or the like, lol. Am an illustrator/game/comic artist, mostly.

[Bri-Toon]

Sounds very impressive.

 

I actually believe it never really went away... Also, comic books got a reinforced boost some years ago and they're still having it, specially super heros and Manga genre, and a lot of those, of the men and women working for a salary doing that,

 

And that is my plan. Now that I have the graphic skills, and now that I am finally happy with the program I am using (after years of kicking myself), I'm attempting to make a comic to later publish and sell on a website like Blurb or Lulu and see how progress goes with that. It's aimed for kids, and the kids I work with already think I'm awesome. Haha. All it really takes is the simple "Get out there and do it" approach.

 

Today for doing animation I'd only go vectors. But again, I've just 2D animated for some games, besides animating pixel art. Not a pro in 2D animation working for a film or the like, lol. Am an illustrator/game/comic artist, mostly.

 

I hear you. I went through a phase when I was trying to get back to regular pixel drawing, but I am just too use to vector. It is convenient in so many ways.

[BONES]

About why is that convenient that AD makes users from AI should feel natural -even if noticing quite some differences- same as why have AP is kind of following certain standards that wouldn't make PS users feel like being in Mars. Well, market domination. Is absolutely too obvious that Adobe has every one and their dog using PS and AI. If you want to compete in the market, you need to welcome those huge masses. Heck...Is so basic...

... except, for me, the reason I would be looking for something other than Photoshop is for a better workflow and UI. By copying Photoshop's UI, you are also inheriting all it's worst traits. Copying Photoshop's keyboard shortcuts makes perfect sense - which is why I wonder why After Effects doesn't do it - but just regurgitating it's UI puts me off. After all, I already have Photoshop, why would I spend money on something that is just a Photoshop rip-off, right down to the Refine Edge tool?

 

That said, having been a product specialist for Combustion, and then Toxik/Composite at discreet/Autodesk for six years, I understand completely how conservative the industry is and how resistant to change everyone in it is. I did a demo install and some training at Animal Logic, just after they had finished working on 300. They showed me the hardest bluescreen keying job they had done for the film - six separate keyers and a lot of masking - and in ten minutes I was able to get it about 80% done, with just a single keyer and no masking, in Toxik. After about half-an-hour, one of their guys, who was a Flame guy previously, had finished it to the same standard as the original, still with just one keyer, but they didn't care about any of that. All that concerned them was that the project management side of it was confusing to new users - Toxik had an Oracle database back-end that took care of everything which did a lot fo people's heads in. They accepted that Shake was finished but they wanted something they could just put in it's place with zero disruption. That's why Nuke succeeded where Toxik failed - they hired the former Shake UI designer to make Nuke look and feel like Shake and that was that. I have done some Nuke work as well, even a few demos, but I never liked the way it worked, it is so much less elegant than Toxik. Nuke is literally why I stopped looking for film work and went back to broadcast.

[Bri-Toon]

but just regurgitating it's UI puts me off. After all, I already have Photoshop, why would I spend money on something that is just a Photoshop rip-off, right down to the Refine Edge tool?

 

I find Affinity Photo overwhelming because of the multiple personas. Compared to Designer, the three listed for me make total sense. However, I wouldn't say Photo is a ripoff. As MattP said earlier, the UI was designed entirely their own way. To fit the most important panels in one workspace, the program would have to look similar. There are many programs 'similar' to Photoshop, but they have different initiatives.To answer your question, Affinity is for an easier way of working. In Designer for example, I only need to dig through the menus for one option, and that is expanding strokes. That's it. Everything else is right there on the work space in an organized layout. Plus, a lot of the tools are so much less delicate.

[SrPx]

Sounds very impressive.

 

 

And that is my plan. Now that I have the graphic skills, and now that I am finally happy with the program I am using (after years of kicking myself), I'm attempting to make a comic to later publish and sell on a website like Blurb or Lulu and see how progress goes with that. It's aimed for kids, and the kids I work with already think I'm awesome. Haha. All it really takes is the simple "Get out there and do it" approach.

 

 

I hear you. I went through a phase when I was trying to get back to regular pixel drawing, but I am just too use to vector. It is convenient in so many ways.

 

Then you have your own best "beta testers" (the kids), for your book   :)

Kindda envy you (I need to stick to other type of projects), indeed, seems you are into my very much two favorite fields (together with illustration) : Comic and animation. Sadly, the companies I worked at, required me animating only just side projects, bits here and there, or helping a main animator to alleviate his tasks.  Comics... That's how I started drawing, my main passion, but was never able to make real money out of it, except one year where I worked doing an almost daily cartoon gag (online), and another bunch of months working for a monthly computer magazine that wanted just the same (but printed). My fav, by all means. :) . But comics has quite a lower pay, in my experience, than graphic design for the same number of hours... Unless you get some good hits, and all that, of course.

 

 

... except, for me, the reason I would be looking for something other than Photoshop is for a better workflow and UI. By copying Photoshop's UI, you are also inheriting all it's worst traits. Copying Photoshop's keyboard shortcuts makes perfect sense - which is why I wonder why After Effects doesn't do it - but just regurgitating it's UI puts me off. After all, I already have Photoshop, why would I spend money on something that is just a Photoshop rip-off, right down to the Refine Edge tool?

 

That said, having been a product specialist for Combustion, and then Toxik/Composite at discreet/Autodesk for six years, I understand completely how conservative the industry is and how resistant to change everyone in it is. I did a demo install and some training at Animal Logic, just after they had finished working on 300. They showed me the hardest bluescreen keying job they had done for the film - six separate keyers and a lot of masking - and in ten minutes I was able to get it about 80% done, with just a single keyer and no masking, in Toxik. After about half-an-hour, one of their guys, who was a Flame guy previously, had finished it to the same standard as the original, still with just one keyer, but they didn't care about any of that. All that concerned them was that the project management side of it was confusing to new users - Toxik had an Oracle database back-end that took care of everything which did a lot fo people's heads in. They accepted that Shake was finished but they wanted something they could just put in it's place with zero disruption. That's why Nuke succeeded where Toxik failed - they hired the former Shake UI designer to make Nuke look and feel like Shake and that was that. I have done some Nuke work as well, even a few demos, but I never liked the way it worked, it is so much less elegant than Toxik. Nuke is literally why I stopped looking for film work and went back to broadcast.

 

Well, Photoshop has wrong paths, and quite some very useful ones. Like most UIs and softwares. 

 

After all, I already have Photoshop, why would I spend money on something that is just a Photoshop rip-off, right down to the Refine Edge tool?

 

 

Well, my 2c, heh, not wanting to establish criteria here ;), reasons could be  :

 

While allowing, in many cases, to keep doing what you were doing with PS/AI you get:

 

- No renting system (some companies have literally copied Adobe in that, but allowing a Purchase as alternative(Xara, Allegorithmic, Corel...). The forcing of rent only, have driven a lot of people out. They sure still have made a lot of money from it, as otherwise it would have lasted two days (plus, there's data about it). They could afford that due to absolute market dominance, no doubts in that. Another company -ie, Corel- would have go the way of the Dodo in weeks.

- Extremely cheap price (I mean, c'mon. I am still trying to understand how they survive. If anything, is what I'd put as Kick Starter donator for initiatives that I like! )

- If you would really (which I don't know if is the case, I kind of perceive that you dislike Photoshop, and rarely when that happens is the fact that you have all your work using that tool... But I never know, could be the case.)  have all your workflows depending on Photoshop, your tricks, your methods, you reaaally would welcome a similar UI, totally. No suddenly having to learn a full new UI philosophy.  Still, I need to point out something : I don't care that much about the UI. Some years ago, I would have fight till the end for an specific UI. Then you reach a point where UIs are... pretty all much usable, specially when having get a lot the hang of things so different in UI as Gimp, Blender, Photoshop, Tv Paint, Deluxe Paint, 3d Studio Max, Inkscape, Zbrush (yeh, I have yet an old license, btw no free updates in that one, rather costly, too!) , Deep Paint 3D, or spartan UIs like the very useful but hard Virtual Dub, etc, etc. I could go on. All those used in real pro workflows. UI to me is not the issue, but functionality and real capabilities. Still, if the UI is too bad, it can seriously damage the speed in your workflow, and yes, that's bad even if you are quite "UI eclectic" . My main point is, that business wise, is not very clever to not adopt an UI that has quite some similarities with Adobe's, if want to succeed in the market as an alternative. And there's a need for this: You need a good number of customers. Specially at that price, and making it higher will make all that people stay where they are !

- Business workflows in every company are already taken by Adobe. A customer will ask freelancers for the files in PSD format, even with very native features in layer efects and etc, that will cause most alternative to be unable to interact with that. Companies have even their own plugins tied very  tightly with they internal workflow. It has its roots there, tied like with cement, wont go away unless all is advantages in the alternative, whatever it is.

- Believe me or not, I sense the UIs of these too, are less intimidating for a bit less than mega pro level technical or artist individual (decades of working with graphic tools). Is a subtle thing, but it is there. The huge majority in the world are used to Photoshop. despite the UI being or not easy, and being or not the ideal best UI possible, is... what they know, that makes it easy for them.

 

 

I understand completely how conservative the industry is and how resistant to change everyone in it is.

 

 

Fully agree. Look, I am the one in the companies that is sort of the weird guy trying new tools that nooone use. And I do it simply to never cease to try and improve workflows in : speed, usability and flexibility. In the long run, that's success. Well, the resistance is... HUGE. It's even me taking a risk, a lot of times. I took the hits while trying to insert Wings3d as a modeler, until they saw me modeling (you know, the dragon's breath in your neck, trying to find any issue in what you are doing (because they really wanted me using ONLY Max and Maya)) and realized the Mirai's tricks in subdiv modeling are incredibly fast and convenient in organic modeling. Years after, Max went adding a lot of that (not just copying from Mirai and Wings, but Silo, and many specialized modelers).

 

In a company making arcade games (I mean the big machines in the pubs and bars) and less pretty nice gaming stuff, they had its resistance about me making 3D renders with Blender (and by then there was no Cycles). It was pains till they saw Blender can render very nicely if well used. That's the hardest path, and makes your life way more complex, so, I do FULLY understand people not even caring for going to another thing than Adobe's. Is too much of a fight and we graphic workers do not have things easy already.   Plus, is what they will ask you. Every company, in the very first interview, they demand me knowing  to perfection Adobe and/or Autodesk tools, till every bit.  Only once I was asked to handle Corel Draw. Xara's, never. Here they don't even know it exists (but they know Serif, as older versions came free with many computer magazines cd's. Now that's not much used anymore (CDs and magazines), but the equivalent is the low purchase price they have set. )

 

Interesting the story in the film industry. I've only worked for games and graphic design for web/print. In the latter, no issue in what I'd use always that the result were great and didn't involve more cost than a single purchase: Photoshop (heh). But in games, you did have to be all Max or you were out. My modelers and stuff, they allowed me to keep using them (I provided what they needed, so, no brainer) with one condition: I would provide all sort of solutions for my output be integrated  into Max/maya, the integration tools. And all resources needed for conversions, or whatever would get involved, in  my own, would have no help. That together with they were all the freaking time trying to hunt any mistake, forced me to work not leaving even a human margin for error, as I knew what would be the following, uninstalling my fav apps from my work machine, even while they were free or purchased by me. Heck, even the wacom was mine...

 

IMO, life is WAY easier when you just adopt the company's whatever software. Some much cleverer managers do have some flexibility, and if the project allows it, they permit a mixed usage without that aggressive fight. Other times, one understands there's simply no technical option that use ONLY the established app. No issues in that case, am not a crazy fanboy :D. There's almost always a tool is the best for the case, established and dominant or not.

 

Seriously, for me personally (might have seemed other thing)  the main thing is not the UI, always that is a clever UI for the needed workflows. But the features, (that the ones needed in the pro activities are actually there) and the implementation quality of these features. The UI, I can adapt, quite a lot. The general public... heck, such a different story. Not so many weird freaky users (yeh, that's me) out there ready to pick ANY UI that makes the job, no matter how different to what they expect  ;D . That and, of course, I'm a freelancer. So, a price in initial purchase and major updates that I can afford. And before using any renting, my preference is going back to my mid cost software or even Open Source only, It has mostly what i need. But would be missing some important functionalities already present in AP/AD, and to have those with open source (yet), means A LOT of non optimal workflows based on combining several apps for a non perfect method as a result. This damages you a lot when working for customers. Is not impossible, but a tad harder and slower. Even means I would need to leave out some gigs and concentrate mostly in others. Not the end of the world, but...

[paolo.limoncelli]

Finding new ways to solve problems (even the same old ones) is really needed to keep your mind as brilliant as possible.

Also it makes yourself a better professional.

[mirkea]

"The UI is very Adobe-like and I just can't see that as a good thing."

 

Familiarity. The ability for anyone who knows PS/AI to open this and get right into it.

 

[evtonic3]

You can’t please everyone, I would guess the OP is in the 1%.

[Bri-Toon]

Then you have your own best "beta testers" (the kids), for your book   :)

Kindda envy you (I need to stick to other type of projects), indeed, seems you are into my very much two favorite fields (together with illustration) : Comic and animation. Sadly, the companies I worked at, required me animating only just side projects, bits here and there, or helping a main animator to alleviate his tasks.  Comics... That's how I started drawing, my main passion, but was never able to make real money out of it, except one year where I worked doing an almost daily cartoon gag (online), and another bunch of months working for a monthly computer magazine that wanted just the same (but printed). My fav, by all means. :) . But comics has quite a lower pay, in my experience, than graphic design for the same number of hours... Unless you get some good hits, and all that, of course.

 

Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad that comics and animation are your two favorite fields too. Whether I succeed in my current goal, it will certainly be an adventure.

[BONES]

To fit the most important panels in one workspace, the program would have to look similar

That's not true at all. If you think these applications are complex, wait until you check out a serious 3D suite, yet 3DS Max looks and feels very, very different to Maya. And this is how Combustion looks - very, very different from Designer or anything of Adobe's. You need to change your workflow to get the most out of it but once you get into it, it is much, much better than the way Adobe or Corel do it.

 

 

One question about Designer's UI - is there any way to customise the Windows version like you can on Mac? By that I mean move elements around so that I don't have to move from one side of the screen to the other all the time. I'd also like to get rid of the big panels down the right side until I need them but they seem to be stuck there full-time.

[Petar Petrenko]

That's not true at all. If you think these applications are complex, wait until you check out a serious 3D suite, yet 3DS Max looks and feels very, very different to Maya. And this is how Combustion looks - very, very different from Designer or anything of Adobe's. You need to change your workflow to get the most out of it but once you get into it, it is much, much better than the way Adobe or Corel do it.

 

 

One question about Designer's UI - is there any way to customise the Windows version like you can on Mac? By that I mean move elements around so that I don't have to move from one side of the screen to the other all the time. I'd also like to get rid of the big panels down the right side until I need them but they seem to be stuck there full-time.

 

It may be better if they are in a raw, bellow the context toolbar, instead in a column on the right side?

[MEB]

One question about Designer's UI - is there any way to customise the Windows version like you can on Mac? By that I mean move elements around so that I don't have to move from one side of the screen to the other all the time. I'd also like to get rid of the big panels down the right side until I need them but they seem to be stuck there full-time.

 

Hi BONES,

Drag the panels from the studio panel picking them from their tabs to where you want them. If you drag them all the Studio panel on the right disappears.

[Bri-Toon]

That's not true at all. If you think these applications are complex, wait until you check out a serious 3D suite, yet 3DS Max looks and feels very, very different to Maya.

 

Well semantically speaking, I do still think Affinity Photo is pretty complex. Perhaps just not as complex as 3D software. It is made a whole lot easier. However, the part you quoted from me was actually in regards to my point that Affinity Photo is different from Photoshop but looks similar.

[rubs]

And this is how Combustion looks - very, very different from Designer or anything of Adobe's. You need to change your workflow to get the most out of it but once you get into it, it is much, much better than the way Adobe or Corel do it.

 

I have to disagree. I never used Combustion, but looking at the screen sample you posted and some other examples found elsewhere, I see that its UI is overly complex (screen complexity can be measured. For LTR UIs, it's proportional to the number of left alignments); it has no clear command hierarchy; it uses icons and text in an apparently arbitrary fashion; has tight spacing between elements; contrast is poor; etc. I could go on and on. Seems to be the result of years of organic development and in the end it looks like a puzzle or something made of Lego bricks. Affinity's UIs, on the other hand, are obviously pretty well designed from scratch and follow a very clear hierarchy and logic placement of controls. I understand that after years of use you must be quite proficient in Combustion, but this doesn't make its UI any better than Adobe or Corel in any way.

 

Just my 2c.

[Petar Petrenko]

I have to disagree. I never used Combustion, but looking at the screen sample you posted and some other examples found elsewhere, I see that its UI is overly complex (screen complexity can be measured. For LTR UIs, it's proportional to the number of left alignments); it has no clear command hierarchy; it uses icons and text in an apparently arbitrary fashion; has tight spacing between elements; contrast is poor; etc. I could go on and on. Seems to be the result of years of organic development and in the end it looks like a puzzle or something made of Lego bricks. Affinity's UIs, on the other hand, are obviously pretty well designed from scratch and follow a very clear hierarchy and logic placement of controls. I understand that after years of use you must be quite proficient in Combustion, but this doesn't make its UI any better than Adobe or Corel in any way.

 

Just my 2c.

 

And maybe we are accustomed to use such UI's which previous generations of soifware gave it to us and those UI designers didn't know how to make a good design.  :)

[BONES]

I have to disagree. I never used Combustion, but looking at the screen sample you posted and some other examples found elsewhere, I see that its UI is overly complex (screen complexity can be measured. For LTR UIs, it's proportional to the number of left alignments); it has no clear command hierarchy; it uses icons and text in an apparently arbitrary fashion; has tight spacing between elements; contrast is poor; etc. I could go on and on. Seems to be the result of years of organic development and in the end it looks like a puzzle or something made of Lego bricks. Affinity's UIs, on the other hand, are obviously pretty well designed from scratch and follow a very clear hierarchy and logic placement of controls. I understand that after years of use you must be quite proficient in Combustion, but this doesn't make its UI any better than Adobe or Corel in any way.

I don't think you can be looking at the same image as me. There is certainly a clear hierarchy, although that may not be clear in this instance because what you are probably confusing for the application UI is, in fact, just the UI for one tool within the application (which used to be a whole application of its own). Mostly it's icons in the toolbar, text in the panels, except where it makes sense to do otherwise (particles, paint). And the Toolbar itself is context sensitive, only displaying tools relevant to what you are doing. The colours are mostly default, to comply with a SMPTE standard for working with image files, which specifies neutral tones and low contrast, although every colour can be customised if seeing your buttons is more important to you than seeing what you are working on. I can also tell you for a fact that Adobe would still have their awful OS generated colours if it weren't for Combustion. It's kind of strange but Adobe always seemed to take Combustion far more seriously than discreet/Autodesk did.

 

Far from "years of organic development", it was a whole new UI. Previously it looked like the image Paolo posted earlier and the only thing that changed during it's lifetime was the addition of the panel in the top-left (easily hidden with ALT+F10).

 

Ultimately, though, it is not about how it looks, it is about the workflow it enables and no application I have ever used in my life enables such a slick workflow. I can get from brief to render hours faster in Combustion than I've ever been able to in After Effects or any other competitor, and I've spent twice the number of years using Adobe's tools as my primary than I did with Combustion.

 

As for Affinity's UI, I've made it quite clear why it is poor - having tools on the left side, across the top and down the right side means you are constantly moving all over the screen, instead of being able to concentrate on what you are working on while your cursor only has to move around a small area of the application window. That's why you have to learn so many hotkeys to be proficient in Photoshop - so that you don't have to constantly move you cursor all the way across to the left side toolbar all the time.

 

I assume you are a UI designer? If so, whatever design principles you are using explains why so many UIs are so poor and why great UI design seems to be a thing of the past. Look no further than how far off-track Windows 10's UI is compared to the purity and simplicity of the original Metro design language.

[MattP]

I assume you are a UI designer? If so, whatever design principles you are using explains why so many UIs are so poor and why great UI design seems to be a thing of the past. Look no further than how far off-track Windows 10's UI is compared to the purity and simplicity of the original Metro design language.

Okay, I understand that you do not like Designer's UI, and other people do not like the UI that you like - that's all fine and everyone gets to make their own mind up. Awesome. But there's no need to suggest that just because somebody doesn't see the beauty you see (from your perspective as someone who has used the product deeply over a long time - so perhaps not what a user would find if they came to it fresh?) that they are wrong and hence responsible for every other UI you see that you don't like: I don't think that's fair or helpful.

[BONES]

Thanks for the interface tips but they don't really help. And if anyone can tell me how to get panels back once I have closed them, I'd be grateful because I've lost a few things I'm probably going to need again at some point. What I really want to do is get the toolbar from the left edge and put it horizontally across the top with the other toolbars.

[rubs]

I assume you are a UI designer?

 

Yes, I proudly am, for many years now. As for the remainder of the paragraph, Matt already wrote an excellent answer.

[MattP]

I'm closing this thread now as I think it has come to the end of its useful purpose. People enjoy different things and work in different ways. What works for one person may not work for another, that's why most software has a trial version so you can see if it works for you before buying it (the Windows Designer Trial will be along shortly). Thanks to everyone who has contributed for their thoughts.

 

For the record, looking at the screenshot BONES (whose personal website, created in Xara is here) posted, I can't imagine how a primarily landscape-oriented package such as Combustion works for portrait documents as there's too much vertical height used by the UI, but hey, that's just me. I'm sure that for other people it would work fine.