Jump to content
Ben

Sneak peeks for 1.7

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JET_Affinity said:

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.

Illustrator users REVELED when that simple feature arrived just in march 2017. Just in time for the 30th anniversary. I've never had the opportunity to use Freehand, but I've read a lot about how Illustrator doesn't seem to be engineered for the Graphic Designer in many areas.

So, yeah, big companies algo are late comers to some basic features.

 

2 hours ago, JET_Affinity said:

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

I agree with you, Illustrator is not the way to go (I've used it and I loathe many things about it, while other ones are very good). Talking about this feature some folks are requesting, I hope it arrives some time in the future.

Best regards!


You'll never know what you can do until you get it up as high as you can go!   

AMD FX 8350 :: Radeon HD 7870 :: Windows 10 ::  http://mithferion.deviantart.com/

Oxygen Icons :: Free Quality Fonts :: Public Domain Pictures :: iOS 11 Design Resources :: iOS App Icon Template :: Hot to do High Quality Art :: Mesh Warp / Distort Tool Considerations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see, you are talking overall claims that you find they don't become a reality when you work with that. Well, when that happends I know what how that experience is, I simply wonder, when you see that failure, if on some other city or country there is comeone who thinks otherwise.

Anyway, I agree with you on some other points:

  • The Affinity suite has so much potential, and I've made my bet on it (I admit that Graphic Design is not my main focus, but it's also a think I do on my work, so you could say I'm not a high end user).
  • Marketing at times becomes a double edged sword.
  • Being a "professional" is a concept that covers a broad range of situations, so yeah, Affinity still can't cover all scenarios and use cases, but then again, I hope they cover more in the future.

Best regards!


You'll never know what you can do until you get it up as high as you can go!   

AMD FX 8350 :: Radeon HD 7870 :: Windows 10 ::  http://mithferion.deviantart.com/

Oxygen Icons :: Free Quality Fonts :: Public Domain Pictures :: iOS 11 Design Resources :: iOS App Icon Template :: Hot to do High Quality Art :: Mesh Warp / Distort Tool Considerations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2018 at 1:30 AM, 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. 

 

I assume that in your mind, your mean Professional = Corporate? I'm a developer, and I'm on the forum trying to help out. I have the best knowledge of our software, our code, and I can actually fix or implement features. Yet for some reason you would rather speak to a marketing person? Or a member of a support team? Or someone else that can't actually implement the change that you want. That's certainly not the feedback we've received from the majority of our other customers - they really appreciate being able to speak directly to development staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/12/2017 at 5:27 PM, Ben said:

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

 

NodeTool.mov

 

 

Will it be possible to select two nodes and create a new node between them without affecting the shape?

Would be great to have. It's something I always have to do when cleaning up paths. Especially when cleaning up after drawing glyphs.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pathfinder, you have no idea how valuable having direct access to a developers means.  All I will say is that if you think the developers are not prioritising your request and you find the feature in some bloatware, by all means no one is stopping you from using the bloatware.  In fact, do us the favour and go to the bloatware so the developers can have their peace of mind do innovate without being pested with these discouraging comments from you.

If you love the so-called "Professional" or "Corporate" guys, then what brings you into this forum??  You should have no business here, IMHO.

I think "Professionalism" should be reciprocated. If you demand professionalism from the developers as you put it, lead by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

 

You are writing from deep down your fox hole. "I have the best knowledge etc." is simply not a sentence I would hear from my team of programmers. ... They fix and implement features I tell them we NEED ... The programmers understanding of their needs is never good, and they know it. It is obvious that you don't. ...

 

So in short, no, I really don't want to talk to you or any other developer or any marketing person. ...

 

On the forum you are talking the group of customers who decides to keep the program. Perhaps you should also think about the other groups. The silent group. Customers who are not satisfied. People who did not chose to buy your product after a trial. Etc. To me it looks like there could be quite a lot with more technical needs. But the few who actually makes their voice heard here talks to the deaf Serif cat.

 

1. You're assuming that we work the same way that you work. You're also assuming that your way is best.

 

2. You seem to be the odd one out here. 

 

3. Designer is a vector drawing and illustration application - not a technical drawing application. I'm sorry that it doesn't have the features that you require, so you should probably look into getting a refund and / or using a different piece of software for your needs.

 

 

 

I've spent enough time trying to point out that we're trying to help here, but as you're just ranting about our methods, and not bringing anything constructive to the discussion, I'll be switching back to helping other customers on the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.  I started this thread to showcase features that are coming in 1.7.  This was no way an exhaustive list of everything that will go in, and I have said there is time to add more, so I fail to understand why us showing new (hopefully helpful) stuff has come across as the complete opposite.

 

It is a shame that some people have hijacked this thread for a diatribe about how we aren't doing what they want... and in their imaginary time frame.  1.7 is not coming just yet, and we have given no fixed time frame.

 

So, I am going to delete all posts on this thread that are not discussing the features that I am showcasing (in a helpful manner).  The intention was to show what we are doing and take helpful feedback before we even get to Beta, and so that you know we are already working towards the next updates.


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Frank Jonen said:

 

Will it be possible to select two nodes and create a new node between them without affecting the shape?

Would be great to have. It's something I always have to do when cleaning up paths. Especially when cleaning up after drawing glyphs.

 

Can you elaborate a little more on this?  We can add a "insert node" function - but where is the question? - either at the logical midpoint (curve t=0.5) or at the physical centre point (which will never be precise as it will be achieved through curve subdivision).


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Can you elaborate a little more on this?  We can add a "insert node" function - but where is the question? - either at the logical midpoint (curve t=0.5) or at the physical centre point (which will never be precise as it will be achieved through curve subdivision).

Insert node at midpoint /and or add x(nodes) between 2 points would be a really useful feature:)


APh & AD 1.7.1.445 + Beta AD 1.7.2.464 | APh 1.7.1.404 + Beta AP 1.7.2.464
APu 1.7.1.404 +Beta Apu 1.7.2.458

OS:Windows 10 Pro 1903 OS Build 18362.295
Rig:AMD FX 8350 and AMD Radeon (R9 380 Series) Settings Version 19.07.5(Adrenalin, 
Radeon Settings Version
19.1.1) + Wacom Intuous 4M with driver 6.3.35-3

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We can add a "insert node" function - but where is the question? - either at the logical midpoint (curve t=0.5) or at the physical centre point (which will never be precise as it will be achieved through curve subdivision).

Both.

It's kinda like distribution of interpolated steps in typical path blends: Sometimes you want the intermediate steps to occur at equal increments along the length of the spine path; other times, you want the distribution to be progressive, according to the curvature (affected by the node handles). Some programs do it one way, others the other way. But seldom are both options offered (another opportunity to exceed standard fare).

For a simple example, consider an ellipse which is drawn to represent a foreshortened circle, like the spoke holes of a bicycle rim. You'd want bisecting a segment to effectively place the added node at what would be the foreshortened angular difference; the proper position for an additional spoke between the two selected ones. If I can have only one, this is far preferred to me, because it is so important in technical illustration; effectively working like an elliptical protractor.

But in other more "designerly" situations, the ellipse doesn't represent a foreshortened circle at all; suppose it's just the flat shape of a mirror frame along which you want the added nodes to be uniformly spaced like beads on a necklace.

Illustrator's Add AnchorPoints command, by the way, adds nodes to bisect each segment in the first way described above. But it always adds a node in each segment of the entire path, whether you need them or not. Being able to instruct the program to limit the added nodes to a single segment or a contiguous range of segments would again exceed the competition.

By the way, when doing path blends, I more often want uniform spacing, but Illustrator cannot do that with its path blends. A commonly used awkward workaround is to repeatedly invoke its Add AnchorPoints command, thereby adding a ridiculous number of segments, which then causes the intermediate steps to appear uniformly spaced independent of the shape of the path but, of course, makes it impractical to smoothly adjust the curvature of the spine path thereafter.

JET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ben said:

 

Can you elaborate a little more on this?  We can add a "insert node" function - but where is the question? - either at the logical midpoint (curve t=0.5) or at the physical centre point (which will never be precise as it will be achieved through curve subdivision).

 

A percentage slider would be one way to do it, the logical midpoint would be another. I reckon logical would be best as a default as it keeps the curve shape unaltered.

 

I wonder whether it'd be even possible to "ride a point" on the curve and once you let go, that's where it gets placed. Back in the Illustrator days I used a path to cut where I wanted a node, then joined the points again because adding points always messed with the shape.

 

Maybe even expand that idea to a panel with multiple tools?

  • Auto-Add Node to place one at the logical midpoint.
  • Adjust Position for the sliders
  • Free Position for the riders of the lost node
  • Relocate Node to move a node on the path and recalculate the control points to match it again.

…and so on.

 

For example FontLab Studio has this thing where you can take away nodes and it keeps the curve shape intact until you take away too many. I think Glyphs has it too, but I haven't tried all of it's features during my trial period.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Here are some videos to demonstrate all the snapping that I've added for handles.  Please note, I'm not talking about snapping to grid, I am talking about snapping to useful construction angles relative to the opposite curve point and handle.

 

So, the following snaps are shown:

 

1) Snapping to smooth a cusped node - SnapToSmooth.mov

2) Snapping to inline, and 90 degrees to inline - SnapToInlineAndNormal.mov

3) Snapping to reflected angle - SnapToReflected.mov

4) Snapping to parallel direction - SnapToParallel.mov

5) Snapping to 90 degrees of parallel - SnapToParallelNormal.mov

6) Snap to logical triangle (useful for square corners?) - SnapToTriangle.mov

 

The useful thing about these snaps is that they will enable you to perform common curve construction, completely independent of grid or set axis.  You can use them in tandem with a second action while holding Shift to snap the handle lengths to match the preceding or following handle (while maintaining the direction you already snapped).


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hoped so.

 

One of the peculiarities of Beziers is that while they don't create a perfectly accurate arc (usually we construct a circle from 4 linked Beziers), a single Bezier is fairly stable up to an arc of 120 degrees.  So, forming arcs of 90 degrees is reliable.  These snaps should give you all sort of variations of getting at 90 degrees in a single arc.


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

 

Is possible snapping only same angle, or also the same handle long?

This would be perfect for ensuring symmetry.

 

Like I said, you'd snap your direction first, then perform a second mouse drag while holding Shift to fix the handle length - then you'd have a perfectly symmetrical curve segment.

 

Demonstrated: SnapToReflectedPlusLength.mov

 

It has to be done as two separate actions, else you'd have two independent types of snap that would fight against each other. While it is another step, it means you'll have greater control over the curve.  Since we use Alt to cancel snapping outright, you might otherwise end up fighting against snapped lengths while all you really wanted was to fix the direction.


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t understand that completely, Ben. I suppose Pšenda meant to ask if it was possible to snap the length of a handle A to the length of a handle B, where A and B belong to different, though adjacent nodes on a path. So holding down Shift during the second mouse drag will snap the length of A to the length of B?

 

Snap-Symmetry.png.e6f37f34dac88bcea6c6c7e157e305db.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is.  The video shows exactly that.

 

When holding Shift to constrain direction, snapping instead allows you to snap the handle length.  If a single mark appears, you've matched the length of the joining handle (on the same node).  If a double mark appears, you've matched the length of the handle at the other end of the segment (like your A-B example).  Of course, it is also possible to match both, in which case the handle line will show both a single and double mark.


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant Ben..you have obviously been very busy with these new features.

They are looking fantastic..keep it up...

I am really looking forward to getting my hands on them to test (well....play/experiment create crazy drawings! and all that):)


APh & AD 1.7.1.445 + Beta AD 1.7.2.464 | APh 1.7.1.404 + Beta AP 1.7.2.464
APu 1.7.1.404 +Beta Apu 1.7.2.458

OS:Windows 10 Pro 1903 OS Build 18362.295
Rig:AMD FX 8350 and AMD Radeon (R9 380 Series) Settings Version 19.07.5(Adrenalin, 
Radeon Settings Version
19.1.1) + Wacom Intuous 4M with driver 6.3.35-3

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems I don’t understand precisely what you meant, Ben. I am sorry for my confusion. Are you talking about the video named “SnapToReflected.mov”? To my eyes, it seems as if the handle you are moving in this video only snaps to the angle indicated in my screenshot, but not to the indicated length of the opposite handle. Or does it? :/

 

Snapping-Targets.png.241485368d30a68525f5f851c79dfd06.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ben said:

 If a single mark appears, you've matched the length of the joining handle (on the same node).  If a double mark appears, you've matched the length of the handle at the other end of the segment (like your A-B example).

 

The examples show use on a single-segment curve.

However, I infer that angle snapping will controlled both adjacent handle even in multi-segment curves, or am i wrong?


Affinity Photo 1.7.1.404, Affinity Designer 1.7.1.404, Affinity Publisher 1.7.1.404. Affinity Store.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 1903, Build 18362.145.
Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 8:47 AM, JET_Affinity said:

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

 

I too started on the board. I would agree completely with what you are saying with the exception of this, not everyone knows how to construct an axonometric illustration from nothing other than part in hand or blueprint. It has been my experience teaching technical writers and others that want to create there own technical illustrations, but don't have the technical training or degree, that they rely on that grid as not so much a tool but as a guide or reminder as to where they are relative to the three axis. I constanty see flip-flopping of major and minor axis of ellipses and inconsistant (non-parallel) lines.

 

Again, as a "guide" I think they are indespensible for those less experienced but it would be great for those of use less reliant to be able to turn them off if they become too destracting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I already figured out just how useful the features in those sneak peeks will be. I'm currently drawing a dining room whereas the room is in a slanted angle, and I want the windows to match the perspective. Rather than skewing the parts of the square shape of the windows individually, wouldn't that mean you can skew both square shapes at the same time if the selected nodes are put in a bounding box?


The website is still a work in progress. The "Comics" and "Shop" sections are not yet ready. Feel free to connect with me and let me know what you like or what can be improved. You can contact me here, on my contact page, YouTube channel, or Twitter account. Thanks and have a great day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ben said:

Ok, Here are some videos to demonstrate all the snapping that I've added for handles.  Please note, I'm not talking about snapping to grid, I am talking about snapping to useful construction angles relative to the opposite curve point and handle.

 

So, the following snaps are shown:

 

1) Snapping to smooth a cusped node - SnapToSmooth.mov

2) Snapping to inline, and 90 degrees to inline - SnapToInlineAndNormal.mov

3) Snapping to reflected angle - SnapToReflected.mov

4) Snapping to parallel direction - SnapToParallel.mov

5) Snapping to 90 degrees of parallel - SnapToParallelNormal.mov

6) Snap to logical triangle (useful for square corners?) - SnapToTriangle.mov

 

The useful thing about these snaps is that they will enable you to perform common curve construction, completely independent of grid or set axis.  You can use them in tandem with a second action while holding Shift to snap the handle lengths to match the preceding or following handle (while maintaining the direction you already snapped).

 

You have no idea for how long I wanted these sorts of snapping features.

The only app ever offering extensive snapping so far was ViaCAD with the downside that almost everything was line vector based. 

 

1.7 is going to be one awesome release.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×