Joachim_L Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Yes, sorry read this later on, so I hid my post. ------ Windows 10 | i5-8500 CPU | Intel UHD 630 Graphics | 32 GB RAM | Latest Retail and Beta versions of complete Affinity range installed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_B_C Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Oh, please don’t hide your post, Joachim. It is certainly very useful for other people who follow this conversation and have the exact same question. Joachim_L 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oval Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 4 hours ago, A_B_C said: Yes, this is the only workaround. No, much easier is this: Increase “DPI” in “Document Setup…”. For example use 21893 dpi if the page size is not bigger than (DIN) A4. Or make the use of other apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim_L Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 8 minutes ago, A_B_C said: Oh, please don’t hide your post, Joachim. It is certainly very useful for other people who follow this conversation and have the exact same question. There seems to be no option for unhiding posts? MattP 1 ------ Windows 10 | i5-8500 CPU | Intel UHD 630 Graphics | 32 GB RAM | Latest Retail and Beta versions of complete Affinity range installed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 47 minutes ago, Joachim_L said: There seems to be no option for unhiding posts? Once a post is hidden, only moderators can see it. So it would presumably require moderator intervention to unhide it. MattP 1 Alfred Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for Windows • Windows 10 Home/Pro Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for iPad • iPadOS 17.4.1 (iPad 7th gen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff MattP Posted September 4, 2019 Staff Share Posted September 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Joachim_L said: There seems to be no option for unhiding posts? I've just unhidden it for you Alfred and Joachim_L 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff MattP Posted September 4, 2019 Staff Share Posted September 4, 2019 16 hours ago, Oval said: In direct comparison (from a 0.5 pt stroke): CorelDRAW® 2019 delivers an exact result as opposed to AD. “People coming from Adobe that took for granted that things just work properly”, have not really used A-dope. To be fair, you did deliberately choose to use a small object there (or a low document DPI) because you know that's what provokes the incorrect behaviour. The results only look so wrong here because of the size it has been performed at. This is currently being fixed, as I mentioned many times before. StuartRc, Mark Ingram, Mithferion and 5 others 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 43 minutes ago, MattP said: This is currently being fixed, as I mentioned many times before. Are we likely to see the fix in 1.7.x, or is it too early to say? Alfred Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for Windows • Windows 10 Home/Pro Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for iPad • iPadOS 17.4.1 (iPad 7th gen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oval Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 55 minutes ago, MattP said: To be fair, you did deliberately choose to use a small object there (or a low document DPI) To be fair, we used the standard 300 dpi of AD and the same size in CorelDRAW® 2019, only to illustrate that Kuttyjoe is wrong with “in Coreldraw it's much worse”. 0.5 pt and a diameter of 0.3 mm is not too small for CorelDRAW® 2019. LarrySunshine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff MattP Posted September 4, 2019 Staff Share Posted September 4, 2019 11 minutes ago, Oval said: To be fair, we used the standard 300 dpi of AD and the same size in CorelDRAW® 2019, only to illustrate that Kuttyjoe is wrong with “in Coreldraw it's much worse”. 0.5 pt and a diameter of 0.3 mm is not too small for CorelDRAW® 2019. As I said - you deliberately used a small object which you know will go wrong. You can't claim this wasn't deliberate as it very obviously was. Showing that something you know is wrong is definitely wrong is not achieving anything in my book? It didn't help me (or anyone else already contributing to this thread) know where the problem is or show me how good CorelDraw does with something we fail at. If I wanted to, I could show you ways in which any other program can fail at certain functions - I do not as it is not helpful. Alfred, Move Along People and A_B_C 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oval Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 On 4. September 2019 at 12:05 PM, MattP said: you deliberately used a small object which you know will go wrong No. I used a small object, because I hoped to find the limit of CorelDRAW® 2019 because Kuttyjoe wrote “Even Coreldraw has this exact problem” and because I hoped AD would work better. It should only show that Kuttyjoe is not right with his claim “Coreldraw has this exact problem , but in Coreldraw it's much worse” and should not achieve anything in your book. KR Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunny Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 3 hours ago, MattP said: Showing that something you know is wrong is definitely wrong is not achieving anything in my book? I thought that this is called "bug-reporting" and it is usually considered useful. (I'm sorry for being "not helpful.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff Patrick Connor Posted September 4, 2019 Staff Share Posted September 4, 2019 58 minutes ago, Gunny said: I thought that this is called "bug-reporting" and it is usually considered useful Normally it is. I think you should read Matt's statement as Quote Showing that something you know (has been accepted as) wrong, is definitely wrong, is not achieving anything in my book? Telling us things that are wrong when you are not sure if we already know, is... 1) very helpful, when we don't already know and 2) completely understandable when we do already know, but you were not aware we did. Matt knows that Oval is already aware... 1) that this function is imperfect and 2) that we have acknowledged that imperfection. MattP, A_B_C and MEB 3 Patrick Connor Serif Europe Ltd Latest V2 releases on each platform Help make our apps better by joining our beta program! "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility lies in being superior to your previous self." W. L. Sheldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay1991 Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Is the solution currently being worked on aim to be exact or a bit more accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithferion Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Jay1991 said: Is the solution currently being worked on aim to be exact or a bit more accurate? Yes. Best regards! AMD FX 8350 :: Radeon HD 5670 :: Windows 10 :: http://mithferion.deviantart.com/ Oxygen Icons :: GCP Icons :: iOS 11 Design Resources :: iOS App Icon Template :: Free Quality Fonts (Commercial Use) :: Public Domain Images How to do High Quality Art :: Mesh Warp / Distort Tool Considerations :: Select Same / Object - Suggestions :: Live Glassmorphism Effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff Patrick Connor Posted September 5, 2019 Staff Share Posted September 5, 2019 14 minutes ago, Mithferion said: 2 hours ago, Jay1991 said: Is the solution currently being worked on aim to be exact or a bit more accurate? Yes. This is an OR question. "Yes" is not an answer (unless it's a sarcastic yes) Patrick Connor Serif Europe Ltd Latest V2 releases on each platform Help make our apps better by joining our beta program! "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility lies in being superior to your previous self." W. L. Sheldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithferion Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 35 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said: This is an OR question. "Yes" is not an answer (unless it's a sarcastic yes) The yes is for the currently being worked part of the question. The or, for me, is not substantial to the nature of the question. Best regards! A_B_C and Patrick Connor 1 1 AMD FX 8350 :: Radeon HD 5670 :: Windows 10 :: http://mithferion.deviantart.com/ Oxygen Icons :: GCP Icons :: iOS 11 Design Resources :: iOS App Icon Template :: Free Quality Fonts (Commercial Use) :: Public Domain Images How to do High Quality Art :: Mesh Warp / Distort Tool Considerations :: Select Same / Object - Suggestions :: Live Glassmorphism Effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oval Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 On 27. März 2018 at 2:41 PM, Dziggolo said: Any clues when this bug will be fixed? This is something that prevents me from moving to Affinity On 5. September 2019 at 1:12 PM, Jay1991 said: Is the solution currently being worked on aim to be exact or a bit more accurate? Quote its non-trivial to produce a mathematical offset from a cubic bezier that is correct. It is however possible to produce an offset that is ‘good enough’ that you’d never know it wasn’t right. We already have this code. I’ve said before that I intend to rewrite the expand strokes function to produce the actual offset curves in this fashion rather than re-fitting the expanded geometry as we currently do. I will implement this as soon as I’m able. To be clear, this is very important and will be done as soon as I can - but it is not trivial to implement and needs to be done carefully (ie not in a rush!) or the results will be just a different kind of wrong! ;) We are sure that Serif will find a great solution soon. Regards Georg Jay1991 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuttyjoe Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 On 9/3/2019 at 12:23 PM, Oval said: @Kuttyjoe In direct comparison (from a 0.5 pt stroke): CorelDRAW® 2019 delivers an exact result. “People coming from Adobe that took for granted that things just work properly”, have not really used A-dope. Whatever. But this problem is hard to miss when you start working with something more complex than a circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oval Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 19 minutes ago, Kuttyjoe said: something more complex than a circle What the hell? AFTER is better than BEFORE … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuttyjoe Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 15 hours ago, Oval said: What the hell? AFTER is better than BEFORE … OK. It's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 15 hours ago, Kuttyjoe said: Whatever. But this problem is hard to miss when you start working with something more complex than a circle. Whatever. But you had to have tried to get that result...it seems to me. I couldn't get the same poor result you did using your image. That said, I've used many image trace in several applications, including VM. While VM produces the most conistent good results, it hasn't handled all images I needed traced as well as CD, AI, DP, and with the odd image, even XDP. There is no one size fits all (though VM comes close). And I doubt Serif's eventual tracing will be any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrySunshine Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 On 9/4/2019 at 12:03 PM, MattP said: To be fair, you did deliberately choose to use a small object there (or a low document DPI) because you know that's what provokes the incorrect behaviour. The results only look so wrong here because of the size it has been performed at. This is currently being fixed, as I mentioned many times before. The size of element shouldn't matter, so you should obviously know as a dev. A proper vector editor has to be precise. It's actually even worse if the result is barely noticeable so if big prod is launched and the result doesn't fit, looks funny etc. I mean you know all this right? Oval 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oval Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 5 hours ago, LarrySunshine said: The size of element shouldn't matter […] I mean you know all this right? @LarrySunshine Apparently, people at Serif did not know that the function does not work well even beyond 10 millimeters. Neither the program itself nor the help warns of the inaccuracies, although this has been demanded. One can only hope that Serif does not have to deal with lawsuits. LarrySunshine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLC Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 13 minutes ago, Oval said: @LarrySunshine Apparently, people at Serif did not know that the function does not work well even beyond 10 millimeters. Neither the program itself nor the help warns of the inaccuracies, although this has been demanded. One can only hope that Serif does not have to deal with lawsuits. Come on, this is a known issue for years... For years, indeed. Why relying on your users to report errors is the dumbest thing you’ll ever do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts