Jump to content

Expand Stroke Needs Work


Recommended Posts

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?

------
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

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.

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher for Windows 1.10 • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.10 • Designer for iPad 1.10 • iPadOS 15.6.1 (iPad Air 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
16 hours ago, Oval said:

In direct comparison (from a 0.5 pt stroke):

corel.jpg.d992d743d26a312e788b8d96f434aa63.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? ears.gif

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher for Windows 1.10 • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.10 • Designer for iPad 1.10 • iPadOS 15.6.1 (iPad Air 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

  • Moderators
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.

Patrick Connor
Serif Europe Ltd

"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

1 hour ago, Jay1991 said:

Is the solution currently being worked on aim to be exact or a bit more accurate?

Yes.

Best regards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
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

"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

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2019 at 12:23 PM, Oval said:

@Kuttyjoe

In direct comparison (from a 0.5 pt stroke):

corel.jpg.d992d743d26a312e788b8d96f434aa63.jpg

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.

CropperCapture[5].png

CropperCapture[6].png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Capture_000183.png.1e9d684ad44cc78a2efd5c8a6bbab38d.png

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

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.