Sneak peeks for 1.7

[Ben]

Thought I'd give you a glimpse of some of the features that will be coming in 1.7.

 

Please note - this thread is only for discussing the features detailed here.  Postings related to other feature requests should be posted on their own thread (else they will get deleted from this thread).

 

We have spent considerable time overhauling the internals of some of our main tools.  It's been a labour of love, but it's going to open up greater possibilities for our core tool set.

 

The core tools are:

- Move tool

- Pen tool

- Node tool

- Shape creation tools

- Text tools

- Fill and Transparency tools

- Place Image tool

- Vector Crop tool

 

So, what improvements can be expected?

 

- Advanced grid editing on spread (move the grid origin and edit it's axis with a handy new widget, with full snapping of course)

- Guides can be created and moved in all the core tools, plus a toggle to turn guide editing off

- Move the artboard ruler origin (with editing toggle)

- Create objects and shapes into an arbitrary grid

- Rotate and flip objects in grid planes (great for people working in isometric), plus an option to rotate shapes in plane using the Move tool

- The Move tool will now allow you to cycle though selection boxes, including regular boxes and grid plane aligned boxes

- Snapping performance improvements

 

[Ben]

And, here is a video glimpse of some of the improvements coming to the Node tool.

 

NodeTool.mov

 

[Ben]

And, here a video showing the new rotate-on-plane feature of the Move tool.  A new shape is created into a grid, using the "Edit In Grid Plane" mode.  Then, with the mode on, any rotations maintain the grid plane perspective.

 

RotateOnPlane.mov

 

[JET_Affinity]

Quote

I am surprised that this has not gotten any responses already 

Quote

Me too.

Take heart. I dare say there is no one here who would have been more inclined than me to respond (which I'm doing now) to news that the grids feature is getting some rework. I check in here pretty regularly, but somehow just didn't discover this thread until now. So I figure many others similarly just haven't noticed it yet.

In fact, I'm responding right now, having not even viewed the sneak peek yet, because this announcement mentions a functionality particularly near and dear to me: axonometric drawing.

Definitely interested in participating in the 1.7 beta (or better, a customer alpha participation which may afford input on interface implementation, as opposed to being more focused on just bug testing.)

JET

[JET_Affinity]

Regarding manipulation of nodes: I hope someone has their eyes on some of the innovative Bezier handling previewed of (and now present in) in the just-released FontLab Studio VI.

Others may remember that much of FreeHand's superior path drawing and selection interface stemmed from its progenitor, Altsys Fontographer. To my hopeful eye, this may signify at least potential for a long-needed renaissance in 2D Bezier-based vector drawing.

JET

[nezumi]

Manipulating selected group of nodes - one of the things I was missing the most! Very cool! Bit sad I haven't seen knife tool yet, but I know its on the list. I am happy for whatever you guys are cooking there Is there similar thread for Photo?

Good luck with improvements! And Thank You!

 

 

[voitek]

Is move tool going to work more like free transform in Photoshop? I'm not gonna lie, and this is one of the basic tools that work great in PS and doesn't have a real equivalent in Affinity.

Edit: Just watched the clip and it's not the case this time.

[RNKLN]

On 12/25/2017 at 11:19 AM, voitek said:

Is move tool going to work more like free transform in Photoshop? I'm not gonna lie, and this is one of the basic tools that work great in PS and doesn't have a real equivalent in Affinity.

Edit: Just watched the clip and it's not the case this time.

Photoshop is the equivalent of Affinity Photo, while Illustrator is the equivalent of Affinity Designer. The move tool will be improved in Designer 1.7. Therefore, I wouldn't compare this to Photoshop. Affinity Photo does have a free transform tool. Not sure how it compares to the one of Photoshop.

[Unsatisfied ex-customer]

Looks very handy indeed. Well done. 

 

But I am still waiting for these important features that never found their way into DrawPlus either - so I am still using Inkscape and clumsy clumsy Illustrator CC for designing logos and shapes:

• handles snapping to especially grid and guides (just check out how Inkscape does)
• snap the node handle to a vertical / horizontal alignment and other angles (just check out how Inkscape does)

I just read the book "Vector Basic Training: A Systematic Creative Process for Building Precision Vector Artwork" by Von Glitschka. His techniques allow you to draw precise or symmetric shapes very very fast. When I read the book in 2011 I had just purchased DrawPlus and was surprised of the poor snapping features in DrawPlus - it made no sense. The tips in the book are hard and often impossible to follow. Well you can if you zoom in and make adjustments with your shaking hand and manual aligning. It just takes ages compared to automation. That is what we have software for, right? Then Affinity Designer surfaced and I was again surprised that these features were promised since 2014. You are SO close to being awesome. Please walk the last meters towards the goal! It is just the core of shape design that the software can assist your shaking hand and guarantee precision and symmetry.

 

I know this was requested and discussed in other threads - just making my voice heard here as well. And I hope the wait will be over once 1.7 arrives. Pleeease. Otherwise I enjoy the user interface and aesthetics of  Designer much more than the competition. Almost there Ben.

 

Merry xmas and happy new hear!

[Peter Werner]

Wow, this looks fantastic!

 

One question – will this allow for working with layouts that are at a slight angle, especially in Publisher, which may or may not get all of the grid options? I have recently had to work on a poster in InDesign that had most elements rotated a few degrees, and it was a pain to adjust things because none of the snapping, aligning and move tools would work properly.

[Petar Petrenko]

On 12/20/2017 at 5:39 PM, Ben said:

And, here a video showing the new rotate-on-plane feature of the Move tool.  A new shape is created into a grid, using the "Edit In Grid Plane" mode.  Then, with the mode on, any rotations maintain the grid plane perspective.

 

RotateOnPlane.mov

 

 

Very interesting features, indeed. I love them.

I was focused on yours Facebook page, so I saw this just now. It will be a good habit if you put some words on Facebook about such features.

I have one question: I saw that you draw separate stars on front and on the top of the cube, but will the star adjust itself to the top grid plane if you move it from the front one?

[FlameRat]

Wow, now this is something _extremely_ handy. Being able to do local transformation would make things so much easier because there's no need to carefully align each node while transforming. And the plane rotate tool would be a game changer for isometric design.

 

Maybe the next thing would be perspective transformation? It will happen eventually, right?

[JET_Affinity]

Regarding the axonometric grids and ruler origin reset:

Hopefully before these two related sneak peek features reach a customer beta stage (in which feature schema and behavior is mostly already committed and focus is mostly just on bug testing), I want to throw this out, so I can sleep at night:

Having been doing isometric drawing since the days of drawing "on the board" before desktop computers, I dare say you won't find anyone more enthusiastic about adding some geometric intelligence (other than just snapping) to the plane grids (more akin to DrawPlus). Such grids are a great way to introduce commercial illustrators without prior experience to axonometric drawing.

So don't think it contradictory when I say this: In all those decades, frankly, I have never met a fellow serious axonometric illustrator who is highly dependent upon grids; neither before the advent of graphics software nor since. Here's why:

There is a fundamental concept which the trivial "isometric grid" features in mainstream drawing software typically gets completely "backward":

As usually implemented, grids make your drawing conform to the grids, when the grids should be adapting to the drawing.

Grids tend to force your drawing to conform to the increments of the fixed grid. That's fine for "fantasy" drawing like, for example, bird's eye view game artwork wherein the actual dimensions and spacing of whatever "boxy" shaped things you are drawing are entirely up to you. But in real-world technical drawing, it's not about just drawing conveniently "boxy" things, and it's not about making your drawing measures conform to a fixed grid; it's about having a set of freely moveable and correctly proportioned angled rulers which enable you to make correctly-scaled measures from any point in your drawing.

In pre-computer days, the only time you saw a tech illustrator using a grid was when he was away from his drawing board (or when his drawing board was not equipped with a track drafter). Newbie illustrators would sometimes use a printed axonometric grid under a sheet of tracing paper. And guess what: He would be constantly moving the grid around under his drawing sheet.

A technical illustrator is not the least bit concerned with measures incremented from any page origin. He's constantly gliding his properly-angled rulers to make measures from pre-existing points in his drawing.

If grids are to serve as the rulers for axonometric drawing, they need to be able to act like rulers and freely follow the cursor, not be stuck to any page origin. The origin of the grids (the intersection point of the three planes) needs to be able to snap to any snapping candidates in the artwork, completely free from interference from a page layout grid.

This is essentially why no grid-based approach has ever really matched the quick, easy, intuitive fluidity of a physical drawing table equipped with a mechanical track drafter. The closest software emulations of the fluidity of the physical tools metaphor are not grids, but three proportional rulers (axes) which follow the cursor, as in some 3D modelers.

But axonometric drawing is, by definition, a 2D construction method historically performed on a 2D sheet of paper. So there's no reason a similar interface could not be provided in a general-purpose 2D illustration software, based on 2D geometry.

JET

[Ben]

@JET_Affinity

 

Something to understand about our Grids and Axis feature - they are complementary but work independently.  You define the axis direction for your grid, but you are not limited to using the grid for snapping.  All bounds snapping and constraining will follow the axis you defined.  So, for isometric, when holding Shift to constrain - you'll get containing to the axis of your isometric grid.  You are not required to place things on grid lines, but you can follow the grid direction.

 

Having the grid visible, but having "Snap to grid" turned off will give you the visual cues of the grid lines, but not limit you to placing objects on grid lines.

 

Alignment when snapping will follow the grid axis - again, you don't have to have snap to grid turned on, but you can align according to the directions of the grid.

 

The Pen and Node tool, for example, will also allow you to project alignments between curve handles along grid directions, and find intersections between projections between two handles.

 

As far as proportional scaling goes - that is how the create in plane and planar rotate features work - they are aware of the planar scaling and apply the correction. I had considered a mode for presenting sizes in planar units (for example, in the transform tab and the measurement tool) - that is something I'll look into.

 

As for the grid origin - yes, you will be able to arbitrarily place that anywhere you want, and use snapping to snap to objects in your illustration.  For planar grids with non-uniform axis, this will allow you to define the relative plane position into which you might snap to grid.

 

If there is anything I'm missing, you'll have to try the tools and see how they play.

 

I've not tried to copy any existing applications when making these tools.  I've just tried to think about how I'd want to draw isometric and find ways to make snapping, alignment and object creation work.  Hopefully that results in us being innovative rather than getting stuck in another applications approach.

 

[aekorps]

On 12/20/2017 at 11:27 AM, Ben said:

And, here is a video glimpse of some of the improvements coming to the Node tool.

 

NodeTool.mov

 

 

Really nice improvements to the node tool! Being able to select and transform the selected nodes is powerful. I could never understand why the Node tool didn't select nodes with dragging as well. Now it does! So glad to see this.

 

Would love to be able to select individual bezier handles like I can in Fontlab 6, but these are great improvements.

[JET_Affinity]

Quote

...you are not limited to using the grid for snapping....So, for isometric, when holding Shift....You are not required to place things on grid lines, but you can follow the grid direction.

Yes, but merely constraining angles to a desired set of axonometric axes can be accomplished in any program that provides a user-defined constraint angles feature (ex: the Constrain Guides sub-feature of Illustrator Smart Guides, and similar features in CorelDraw and ACD Canvas) without need for a page-spanning grid.

What's always missing in those features, though, is any provision for assigning correctly-proportional ruler scales along the constrain angles. That's why I said in my previous post "If grids are to serve as the rulers...":

Quote

I had considered a mode for presenting sizes in planar units (for example, in the transform tab and the measurement tool) - that is something I'll look into.

I'm glad you're looking into that, because there has to be some provision for specifying properly foreshortened and accurate measures parallel to the three axis directions from any snapable point in the drawing.

One possible treatment might be a radio button set in the Transform palette labeled "Axis Scale" versus "Page Scale." That would at least provide a substitute for what other mainstream drawing programs are missing in their user-defined constrain angles. Moreover, it would enable entering measures in terms of true-measure values.

But even that does not emulate the direct intuitiveness or elegance of even a pre-computer drafting machine. Axonometric drawing, by definition, is all about making correctly-proportioned direct measures along three coordinate system axes (i.e.; each axis must have its own scale factor, and those scale factors must be correctly proportioned to each other), and zeroing those measures from elements of the drawing, not from increments of a grid. And performing such measurements should not require looking away from the drawing to a palette.

That's why I said that if grids are the only provision to serve as those on-page rulers, then the intersection of the grids needs to be able to be instantly and fluidly zeroed to any point wherever a mousedown occurs, just as the scale head of a physical track drafter effectively "moves" to the point of interest in the drawing and allows the illustrator to perform a measure from there without having to look away from the drawing.

The closest emulation I've yet seen of the kind of fluidity I envision is Lazy Nezumi Pro (so close, yet so far). In its isometric rulers preset, three rulers appear at and follow the cursor. Unfortunately, when set to other axonometric angles, those three rulers do not currently display proportional scales; all three still show the same scale. (I anticipate this changing, since LNP's converging perspective rulers do display proportional scales.) Plus, being an application-independent "overlay" seems to limit its functionality for vector drawing because (among other things) it is unaware of the program's zoom. And though tick marks were just recently added to the elliptical rulers (thereby allowing them to serve as elliptical protractors--something essential to serious axonometric drawing), the increments are not yet snapable.

But the interface concept is quite sound and elegant (and not unlike similar cursor-following interfaces of high-end 3D modeling applications). A similar treatment actually built into a 2D drawing program would not have those limitations.

For example, imaging drawing with the Pen Tool in its Straight Line mode:

The Axes feature is turned on. Three light-colored axonometric ruler guides appear, with their origin under the cursor. There are correctly-proportional tick marks along each of the three rulers. This set of guides always follows the cursor during mouseup, while the cursor responds to all the normal snapping candidates.

Upon mousedown, the rulers stay put.  The user drags along one of the axis guides. If he holds a modifier key, the cursor snaps to the tick marks of that axis. If he releases the modifier key, the angle constraint is still active, but the tick mark snapping is not. Either way, though, a distance readout (accurate to 4 decimals, please) continually appears next to the cursor.

That allows the illustrator to draw quickly with reasonable precision without having to look away from his drawing and toward a transform palette. But the transform palette (assuming its Axis Scale checkbox is on) can still be used to manually enter exact length.

Given such an interface, a page-spanning grid would not even be necessary. Sure, it would be useful when one wants to automatically "project" side views drawn "in the flat" onto the axonometric planes, and that's fine. But most of my drawing would be done with the grid display turned off. The whole purpose of axonometric methods is to allow the illustrator to intuitively draw directly into a mechanically-correct 3D orthographic perspective without having to draft side views first.

Quote

Hopefully that results in us being innovative rather than getting stuck in another applications approach.

Oh, I'm all for some fresh innovation rather than just conventional wisdom. I look forward to seeing what you have in mind for the new feature. I just hope it's not too "locked in" to be open to some user feedback in terms of the implementation.

JET
 

[Mithferion]

I understand what you say, Mark. And I really appreciate your effort and I engourage you to keep the good work.

Now, about this feature, the talk we had with Ben left me thinking about some things:

• It's something that covers several use cases and it's used by a lot of people (I've read on the Internetz).
• It's not just that it's used, it's an important part of technical drawing and design workflows; even to the point that that single feature will prevent someone from adopting Designer.
• Maybe Ben or some of us don't use nor understand the full impact this has, but I can tell you that I remember scenarios where I would have loved to count with this.

So, I encourage the Team to consider this little thing and what it represents. After that, I hope you integrate this in your internal roadmap and see it in a future release.

Best regards!

P. S.: I ignore if Photoshop has this, but I also hope seeing this one in Photo.

[Mithferion]

I truly believe that they do their best, both in building the App and planning the Value they want for Designer to offer (just imagine how hard is to do adjustments; we don't know all the internal work and organizarion Serif has).

I know what it feels to lack something that is almost as a second nature to you, but I also believe there are other (and better) ways to communicate your needs.

Wish everyone the best.

Best regards!

[Ben]

On 10/01/2018 at 5:10 PM, Pathfinder said:

 

It is EXACTLY your prioriteres that makes me wonder. We are not demanding mesh gradients, 3D rendering or half of what illustrator does. It is a simple and modest feauture request. It is a key feature in many workflows.

If you are just targeting young cartoon artists with a thin wallet - just say so. But with a little effort you can also make Designer a cheap alternative for other designers who demand more precision.

It is simply a question of including an often requested and needed feature that for obvious reasons is part of all programs by key players and competitors. Actually you need pretty good arguments to leave it out in the cold. But we see NONE. You offer no alternatives. You have nothing better or equal to offer after years.

So please tell your marketers to target pencil drawing artists more accurately. They are your priority. Not us.

 

Steady on.  Not a great way to motivate us.

 

Priorities doesn't necessary just mean what we think is important, but also what things have to be done in a certain order, and whether those things collectively also are more important than other features which need attention. It is also a balance of how much work is actually involved in what might appear to be a small feature.

 

I have just spent months refactoring a lot of our internal tools in order to facilitate faster future development and enabling editing features across tools.  This was a big task, but the few changes and additions I have made off the back of this have already demonstrated that this was time well spent.  Now, as a user you will have no idea of the scale of the work involved in changing our internal framework while preserving the current functionality of our tools.

 

Software development is a fluid beast.  Only as our code base expanded did it become clear that things could be achieved in a different/better way.  Due to a lot of commitments already made, the changes I wanted to make got pushed back a number of times. I have now made them, and 1.7 will come with some significant additions - though the scale of work to implement them might still not be obvious to the end user.

 

This thread is to show a raft of new (hopefully innovative) features that are in the pipeline, and you are accusing us of pretty much doing nothing to improve the software...!? All of these additions will achieve 99% of the use cases that have been thrown up (while not tying you to a very limiting grid based drawing method) - the only exception being the ONE use case where you want to be able to easily replicate sets of curves built previously using known grid positions for handles. (If I am missing the other use cases, you will have to explain them individually). AND, I have already made many comments as to why this feature will conflict with our current tool usage, but I think I have even said that we will try and add it.  So what is the problem?  You are not going to be getting 1.7 Beta just yet anyway, so why is this turning into a rant?  We have heard your request, and while I would personally argue that placing curve handles on grid produces a very limited artistic scope, I will accept it is the way you like to work.

[Mithferion]

I'd like to repeat myself, so here it goes:

• I really appreciate Serif's effort and I engourage you to keep up the good work.
• I truly believe the Team does their best.
• I count myself among the people that ask for this feature and I do so believing that it will benefit both sides: users and Serif.
• There are other (and better) ways to communicate your needs.

For now, I wish everyone a fantastic Weekend. Thanks, @Ben for replaying and considering this feature.

Best regards!

Bonus Track:

39 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

Hey, Pathfinder!

If they include all features from the roadmap in forthcoming version 1.7, what should we have to expect in 2.0 -- just a minor bug fixes?

Prototyping capabilities and the little requests I've made.

[Unsatisfied ex-customer]

3 hours ago, verysame said:

 

What astonishes me is the fact that you haven't yet realized where all this rant comes from, and one would say it's pretty obvious, it's under your nose.

You guys can have all the reasons to do what you do, but if only you wouldn't market apple as if they were orange, people would calm down, at least there would be less confusion (considered it's already difficult to keep track without a serious roadmap).

On a side note: sometimes rant comes from passion because developers are not the only ones who spend time on a product, but the end user as well.

 

+1

 

And just to make it clear to everone here. Developers are not decision makers. Their job is to recommend and implement the best technical solution in the machine room to whatever decision makers should decide. Decision makers - whatever rank they may have - must follow a vision for the product - but certainly most of all take into account what customers need. A vision is a dream. Market demand is reality. Somehow on the famous internet posters talk about developers like they are the only beings in software companies. And the tone is like you customers owe them something special? They CODE the software. They work 9-5 like you do. When you are their customer, they work for YOU. When they are your customer, you work for THEM. You don't have to behave like you owe volunteers on a hospital something. Rant if you must.

 

You have a lot to think about. The software is cheap, yes, but Serif is a small company. Now they started all over on three huge products and they will also make two big iPad apps as well. New users will not remember DrawPlus and PagePlus and the history behind the development. But everything took forever. Cheap is not an advantage if you wait for years. Real scientists are not afraid of death. They are afraid of time!

 

As @verysame said. Look under your nose, Serif. You made an apple. Not an orange. Market an apple. Your marketing always made your software look like much more than it really is. If you compare your attitude on this forum with more serious and bigger companies, you will observe a more professional approach from the staff in bigger companies. This forum is more or less like open source software forums where stubborn developers take it personal when a majority of the user base turns against them after a bad decision was made and implemented - and other developers even have to fork the code to make a wrong right. 

 

I have to spend my money elsewhere. That ... is... the... whole... point.

[Guest]

Love you, Affinity team!

[JET_Affinity]

Quote

...snap the node handle to a vertical / horizontal alignment and other angles...

Just for accuracy: Node handles do constrain to horizontal, vertical, and other grid angles (not lengths) when pressing Shift in 1.6.1.

No, the full functionality alluded to in the foregoing rants is not there, but it's not as dire as some make out.

I'm a technical illustrator, too, and for my own purposes, I went to the trouble of hacking out a couple of simple Javascripts to allow me to replicate handle lengths and angles between AnchorPoints in Illustrator. So I get the request. But it's not like the full desired functionality is present in even that ostensibly "leading" program.

The Affinity Team is doing great. I, for one, very much appreciate its members making time for direct involvement with Customers in this forum. And while I can be as passionate as anyone about facilitating technical drawing in mainstream general-purpose illustration programs, and though I will also push for "everything I can get" in that regard, I do hope my passion is not thought of as disgruntlement.

Right now, the Affinity line is the most promising platform poised to bring mainstream vector drawing out of its decades of lethargy. And the fact that there will soon be a dedicated Publisher to complete the static graphics triad is huge. Show me another single-source hopeful with all three key elements new from the ground up.

I love asking Illustrator, Canvas, Draw, and even Technical Designer users if they can key a trig function into their pet programs' value fields.

JET

[Mithferion]

Well, here I go again.

DISCLAIMER. I don't pretend to defend nor attack anyone, just to point out some things for the better.

 

On 12/1/2018 at 3:42 PM, Pathfinder said:

If they are annoyed their choice of words is ... accordingly.

Working as a BI/EPM Consultant, I know that as well: customers (Vice Presidents, Directors and Managers) yell at you, curse your entire family and tell you the way you are going to die. I know all of that but I ignore it:

• Their behavior is unprofessional too.
• That's a way to intimidate and control but I don't fall for that.

I come back at a later meeting with the solution (the valid point they did have) and that's it but (go to the next paragraph)...

 

On 12/1/2018 at 3:42 PM, Pathfinder said:

I Invite them to further discussions. And since we do our best to make sure that our interface, workflows and feature set does not limit them in especially routine work flows we get it right ASAP. And not within four or five years, Serif!!!

The difference I see here is that I am in the same as you: I am a customer, and everyone else here is. You normally have one project per client at a time, but here we have professionals around the globe with different needs. We now can argue about this feature and how it works for many many designers, but even that won't represent the 100%. Now, Ben said they are going to try and add it. I support the idea of adding it. That's it. As I told you before: there are better ways to communicate your needs (Ben still doesn't get why this feature is so relevant, I guess), so, don't be like your customers and users.

You've made valid points and I understood them, but hey, when I don't make myself clear I try another way to explain.

Also, consider how long it took for big companies to implement simple features (like Cropping, in Illustrator).

 

On 12/1/2018 at 3:42 PM, Pathfinder said:

And now I really understand why we only let professionals handle the customers and key accounts. Not programmers etc.

Either way of meeting with the clients has advantages and disadvantages. Let's try to make the best out of it.

 

On 12/1/2018 at 4:21 PM, verysame said:

You guys can have all the reasons to do what you do, but if only you wouldn't market apple as if they were orange, people would calm down, at least there would be less confusion (considered it's already difficult to keep track without a serious roadmap).

On a side note: sometimes rant comes from passion because developers are not the only ones who spend time on a product, but the end user as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are refering to this:

  - "Affinity Designer is the fastest, smoothest, most precise vector graphic design software available".

If that's the case: I agree with you, this feature will add and contribute in that department.

 

On 12/1/2018 at 7:30 PM, Pathfinder said:

If you compare your attitude on this forum with more serious and bigger companies, you will observe a more professional approach from the staff in bigger companies. This forum is more or less like open source software forums where stubborn developers take it personal when a majority of the user base turns against them after a bad decision was made and implemented - and other developers even have to fork the code to make a wrong right.

The example you brought about Adobe was neither from a small company and it took two years for them to restore previous functionality, so I guess this happens even with the big fish.

 

On 14/1/2018 at 8:18 AM, JET_Affinity said:

Just for accuracy: Node handles do constrain to horizontal, vertical, and other grid angles (not lengths) when pressing Shift in 1.6.1.

No, the full functionality alluded to in the foregoing rants is not there, but it's not as dire as some make out.

I'm a technical illustrator, too, and for my own purposes, I went to the trouble of hacking out a couple of simple Javascripts to allow me to replicate handle lengths and angles between AnchorPoints in Illustrator. So I get the request. But it's not like the full desired functionality is present in even that ostensibly "leading" program.

What everyone has been talking about was this. Right? Right? 

 

Again, this is for both sides, Serif and us. Looking forward to see this feature in Designer.

Best regards!

 

 

 

[JET_Affinity]

Quote

Also, consider how long it took for big companies to implement simple features (like Cropping, in Illustrator).

At least so far as CS6 ('cause I won't rent business-critical software), Illustrator still can't actually crop a raster image; it can only mask it.

For the benefit of those who may not have "been there," Illustrator trailed versions (i.e., years) behind its historic nemesis, FreeHand, in all these areas:

Editing in Preview Mode. (In other words, simply being able to edit paths with their stroke and fill attributes showing.)

Compound Paths. (Making a path with a hole in it.)

Clipping Paths. (Ex: filling outlined text with a raster image.)

Performing alignment and distribution on Anchor Points (nodes). (Still sub-par compared to FreeHand because Illustrator's insistence on two separate primary selection tools effectively prevents it from "knowing the difference" between a path being selected at the object level, as opposed to merely having all its nodes selected.)

Page 2. Egads! What a concept! The garment-rending, sackcloth-and-ashes outrage from Illustrator devotees (who had practically zero experience with FreeHand or any other drawing program) anytime the need for multiple pages was even mentioned, was just laughable. Why, it was going to be the end of the world; the coming of the apocalypse; illustrators everywhere would be committing hara-kiri!

Predictably, many of those same users now no doubt couldn't live without it. Many probably think Adobe invented the idea. And Illustrator's treatment of it is still cumbersome compared to FreeHand's more straightforward interface.

Basic Math Operators in Value Fields. Another one still inferior to FreeHand's. Illustrator can still only manage a single type of operator in an expression (i.e., multiplication/division or addition/subtraction, but not both).

User-Defined Arrowheads. And man, what a hack job of an interface!

Converging Perspective Grids. Adobe had to acquire FreeHand to copy this one.

That's just off the top of my memory. I could go on.

I've said it here before, and I'll say it as long as it takes: Simple market share no more correlates to functional superiority in drawing software than it does in, say,  motorcycles (my other passion). Illustrator is not the program to emulate. I've seen evidence sufficient to convince me the spunky Affinity Team probably gets that. Some feature requesters...I'm not so sure.

And yeah, time is of the essence in the current window of opportunity opened by Adobe's Customer-alienating licensing change. But compared to the pace of Illustrator's development over decades, development progress of the Affinity line is lightspeed.

JET