Ideas for future

[djjss]

Hello:

I come with some Ideas for Affinity Designer...

• When you create a text that said: "Hello World" I would like that you have a option for split this text and when you click this option, it will put "Hello" in one layer and "World" in another layer and the option if you want split by word or by letter.
• When you are working with curves, I would like that you can select a node and you have the option for rotate this node or scale this or those nodes selected.
• Have the option for convert a Bitmap to vector.
• Have a option that you can create your own brushes without save any picture, is like pattern along path.
• If is possible, compatibility with Illustrator brushes.
• When you select the Pen Tool, it have the option of Stability, I would like another option for do perfect curves, like in InkScape when you select Spiro.
• Effects for curves.
• More transformation option for text like liquify and this transformation option that you can see in Illustrator.
• More variety of adjustment and filters.

At the moment this is the ideas that I have. If I get some more I will let y'all know.

Thanks.

I love affinity products.

[dominik]

4 hours ago, djjss said:

• When you are working with curves, I would like that you can select a node and you have the option for rotate this node or scale this or those nodes selected.
• Have the option for convert a Bitmap to vector.

 

Hello @djjss,

 

welcome to the forum and thank you for your suggestions.

 

Since you are new here you may have not seen it yet. There is a 'sneak peak' thread started by @Ben, one of the developers of Affinity, that demonstrates exactly what you are asking for rotate and scale nodes. See this post and video it contains.

 

There are also extended discussions and wishes for the 'convert bitmap to vector' feature. This feature is not available yet and not part of the current roadmap. This feature will most likely be available at some point in the future. For now I want to suggest that you look into other working solutions. Convert with them and bring the result into AD and work on.

 

Have fun here at the forum 

d.

 

[djjss]

On 4/29/2018 at 2:42 AM, dominik said:

 

Hello @djjss,

 

welcome to the forum and thank you for your suggestions.

 

Since you are new here you may have not seen it yet. There is a 'sneak peak' thread started by @Ben, one of the developers of Affinity, that demonstrates exactly what you are asking for rotate and scale nodes. See this post and video it contains.

 

There are also extended discussions and wishes for the 'convert bitmap to vector' feature. This feature is not available yet and not part of the current roadmap. This feature will most likely be available at some point in the future. For now I want to suggest that you look into other working solutions. Convert with them and bring the result into AD and work on.

 

Have fun here at the forum 

d.

 

Yes I saw it... In this case is in Mac Version, Im in windows version... About rotate the nodes I mean, just the point... if you make a open curve of 3 points, you select just the middle point and you can rotate it...

 

And now another question, how you can do 3D in windows version?

[Uncle Mez]

21 minutes ago, djjss said:

Yes I saw it... In this case is in Mac Version, Im in windows version... About rotate the nodes I mean, just the point... if you make a open curve of 3 points, you select just the middle point and you can rotate it...

 

And now another question, how you can do 3D in windows version?

Hi @djjss look next to layers menu you will group called effects or you click the object and click on fx down the layers group (this one is what I prefer) 

If you select the second option then check the 3D checkbox, highlight the option by clicking on the text of the ssme,  it will display necessary options. 

Just play with.... 

[djjss]

On 5/11/2018 at 10:27 PM, Arnaud Mez said:

Hi @djjss look next to layers menu you will group called effects or you click the object and click on fx down the layers group (this one is what I prefer) 

If you select the second option then check the 3D checkbox, highlight the option by clicking on the text of the ssme,  it will display necessary options. 

Just play with.... 

I saw it, but don't look like in this video that Ben post.

[dominik]

On 12.5.2018 at 3:59 AM, djjss said:

About rotate the nodes I mean, just the point...

 

 

Hi @djjss,

I assume the 'rotate just the point' works the same as 'rotate several selected points'. Since this feature is not available yet I cannot tell for sure.

 

 

On 12.5.2018 at 3:59 AM, djjss said:

And now another question, how you can do 3D in windows version?

 

 

This depends on what you want to do. Real 3D is not available in AD.

You can draw in a way that looks like 3D but it will be done in 2D vector are. There are no genuine 3D tools.

 

If you are referring to Ben's video 'RotateOnPlane.mov' this is just a 3Dish line drawing on a 2D grid. If I say 'just' I do not make this upcoming feature small. In the contrary. It will be very powerful to create 3D like drawings on a two dimensional board.

 

d.

 

 

[angelhdz12]

• When you create a text that said: "Hello World" I would like that you have a option for split this text and when you click this option, it will put "Hello" in one layer and "World" in another layer and the option if you want split by word or by letter.
• Have the option for convert a Bitmap to vector.
  
  You have my vote!

[Guest]

Affinity Designer is a superb application, but of the trio (including Photo and Publisher), Designer has the hardest Adobe nut to crack – Illustrator. Illustrator still provides an enormous feature set, notwithstanding the hundreds of plug-ins that make it really useful. However, many of the best plug-ins are made by Astute Graphics. Moreover, they have further technologies that are not yet part of plug-in functionality, that can be added to any other graphics application through an SDK (https://astutegraphics.com/tech/technologies/).

To my mind, their approach to boolean operations, and almost anything else, is unsurpassed. I would urge Serif to investigate further as such tools would finally put Designer on an equal footing, if not surpassing, Illustrator. It goes without saying I already think Photo is the equal of Photoshop for 99% of needs and the beta of Publisher is outstanding as a first release; and more than a match for the sluggish InDesign.

[Uncle Mez]

1 hour ago, J Clark said:

I already think Photo is the equal of Photoshop for 99% of needs

Hello everyone, Hello @J Clark
I'm back into this thread ... just after i've read the above.

Well it's not falase that APhoto is even closer than PS now since the last windows version but still ... let's also consider the missing stuffs and make up our mind.
Actually the reason why are sometime so impatient (after you read couples of suggestions in the forum) getting things done in APhoto is due to the fact we are trying to bring the clothing and life style from our old mariage into this new one; guys let's not break the second chance we have here.

APhoto is a great products but still lacking of many things we should imagine (in a very original way like @MattP and @AdamW does) and make our propositions/suggestions and also be happy that the devs are replying to us and some of us (like me) are happy to see what they asked be implemented in the software (the recent case being on APub); yet we are in a very friendly world so let's be honest here.

i personally was shocked and had to admit the following Luminar is the real PS alternative and with the coming version it will simply adjust the level and shoot both PS and Lr in the head and we will collect the blood shed on the road, i believe Luminar may sit on the throne the day it include the incontournable selection tool (flood selection and all similar ones)... so let's think twice here.

 
I really like APhoto because its simply a great software but still APhoto need to stand and equip itself with those "Tony Stark like" functionality and Ai tools.

ADesigner is a great piece of software, personally didn't knew how to draw, nor did i liked the pen tool but with ADesigner and the way it's setup things became possible but ... it's still a bit far from Ai which is great but doesn't snap correctly (here new snap implemented in ADesigner and even APub kills it all) and here, the day ADesigner will do prototyping like SketchApp does ... surely Ai will lose a body part but we are not there yet).

Well i'm not coming against your point of view but just bring more light.
Serif is not fighting Adobe but creating a better place to be, where dominant solution can sit closer to minor (if there are minors).

Sorry for this long, long comment, simply wanted to not cut the flow but express it "close to" all so another one can bring more light than i did here.

Blessing and courage to Serif team.

[SrPx]

I myself prefer AD's UI and workflow to Illustrator by a mile... And I worked with AI at companies quite a lot. Beware that a bunch of us aren't photographers (am an illustrator, designer, game artist, pixel artist, 3D grunt. and worked in many positions as a general image editor...probably I know a lot more about photo retouch than a good number of photographers, tho) ...So Luminar,  Lightroom etc functionality might be limited for some of us for some areas/uses, compared to AP (and having some features a bunch of us will never use). And if someone tells me PS  is used only by photographers I will not be able to avoid a very loud laugh....  

[Uncle Mez]

3 hours ago, SrPx said:

I myself prefer AD's UI and workflow to Illustrator by a mile... And I worked with AI at companies quite a lot. Beware that a bunch of us aren't photographers (am an illustrator, designer, game artist, pixel artist, 3D grunt. and worked in many positions as a general image editor...probably I know a lot more about photo retouch than a good number of photographers, tho) ...So Luminar,  Lightroom etc functionality might be limited for some of us for some areas/uses, compared to AP (and having some features a bunch of us will never use). And if someone tells me PS  is used only by photographers I will not be able to avoid a very loud laugh....  

Well this is a great idea and these are deep words that ii personally respect.
Really enjoying to be here in the forum as you, Photography is still what i'm learning at this date so, please forgive, Luminar have made it (not all but at least a good shoot).

Now left as said i still learn about photography, but when it comes ti illustration/vectors there too i'm learning but it less stressful; so when i share here about the whole idea of comparing Serif and Adobe product i'm more standing as a learner who want to improve so i first think about those like me who may quickly abandon things because they find it just ... to hard to learn ro to work with.

Affinity line of products have made my life easier but ... i want more ! i want it simple and easier but efficient and powerful ! i want it convivial and simply beautiful (like the iPad version but yet flexible.

above all, i really enjoy your answer and ... well photoshop is not for photography only, i would laugh out lout if one stand and say that but that's another story.

Blessings !

[JET_Affinity]

Quote

It goes without saying I already think Photo is the equal of Photoshop for 99% of needs...

Not when, say, 50% of a given user's needs happens to be illustration destined for screen imprinting on garments by means of multi-channel spot color separations, for just one example.

It's silly to make these blunderbuss "program A is better than program B" pronouncements. Affinity Designer is already "better than" Adobe Illustrator if you have an essential need, for example, to specify dimensions by trig functions. Illustrator can't do that. Adobe Illustrator is still "better than" Affinity Designer just because of its Pattern Brushes.

All these programs have their own strengths and weaknesses. There is no law prohibiting anyone from using more than one vector drawing program.

A watercolorist doesn't choose his medium because it is "better than" oil paint. Nor vice-versa. Both painters simply exploit the characteristics and abilities of their preferred medium. No one really has to "wait" until Affinity Designer has each and every tit-for-tat feature that so-called "industry leader" (gag me) Illustrator has, before buying it and getting profitable and enjoyable use from it (especially at its price).

What ultimately wins in the marketplace is value and user experience (including customer relations). No one likes having their own creative files effectively held hostage by software rental schemes. Even if hades froze over and Adobe reversed that, the fact remains that the pricing model of all the old stalwarts dates back to the days of the game-changing desktop publishing "revolution." That old world pricing is now long outdated. When industries undergo radical changes people pay "whatever it costs." But then things stabilize, price efficiency is achieved, business models become more realistic, and the big players either adapt or fail to. In that struggle, they grasp at the customer base's tolerance in desperation to maintain their inflated status.  But 2D graphics software is not rocket science anymore.

I learned early on to avoid third-party plug-ins like the plague. To my mind, the whole plug-in thing is long ago failed. Maintaining version-parity is a pain. The vendors of them come and go. All the while they're too "vertical market" priced (the plug-ins often costing as much as or more than the host program itself). But moreover, I quickly found I didn't like developing business-critical dependency upon their volatility. I'm not sure I'd be crazy about how Serif's mission-critical dependency upon more third-party tech licensing might trickle down to me in the form of its products' pricing, capabilities, or interface elegance.

So yeah, I want to see multi-spot-channel accommodation in Affinity Photo. That doesn't mean I can't use it until I can "switch" to it because I'm somehow "required by law" to only know how to exploit the strengths of one program.

djjss,

I'm not the forum sheriff, but please post individual suggestions in their own threads, (and look for pre-existing threads on those topics) so that topics are organized and navigable. Specific-user "wish list" posts just become grab-bags of open discussions, as this one already has.

JET

[SrPx]

I agree with a good bunch of those POVs. I handle a bunch of apps now.... (and plan to purchase even more, specially of painting nature). You make a very key point... Each project almost shouts for a particular tool, sometimes. Even if you manage to regularly do the global activity with, say, the same 3 or 2 apps for vectors and another 2 or 3 with raster, there are projects that seem to be ideal for an specific project. I'm doing a (happily) very long project that requires tons of line art illustration (hence am using CSP a lot) ... and in 3D, I could model almost equally with Blender or Wings 3D, but when it involves a lot of rendering, I end up doing most of it with Blender for less I/O, versus when is mostly heavy work in character modeling, I end up predominantly using Wings.... For me AD and AP are two "new" tools (in comparison with some more arcane apps), just way important for how complete they are, and the wide area they cover ( let's face it, the wider (if they work solid) it is, the safer for a full project) but doesn't collide with your fact: You can use different tools for different projects. Working at companies is very much like that, all the time).

[Guest]

Hi JET_Affinity. I think you’re missing my point... about 99%! 

It's not about feature for feature parity. Most designers and illustrators don't use anywhere near 100% of the feature sets of most applications, hence why Photo handles 99% of what I/we use Photoshop for, period. Of course, how else does anyone compare one application with another without first looking at feature sets that are relevant to your workflow. It's equally ‘blunderbuss’ to suggest it’s irrelevant – no one is going to opt for the ‘lesser’ of two applications given a choice. If you need to drive off-road for a living, you want four-wheel drive, not two-wheel drive.

The entry above was simply highlighting a feature request... include/allow, Astute Graphics technologies to ramp up the abilities of Designer. I've lost count of the number of discussions I've had with designers and illustrators who would like real options beyond Adobe, but until new software actually provides enough features and professional tools to reliably transition without needing to go back (and forward) to Adobe products, we/they will all remain loyal to what we know – notably, the Adobe Creative Suite. That’s not the same as your odd “required by law” interpretation of software use – that’s professionals ensuring they have a reliable workflow from A–Z. Yes, we can all enjoy a one-trick pony piece of software for a one-off use, but when we have professional deadlines to maintain, I'll use the established tricked-out mature software all the time! Features and tools make a difference.

Quote

A watercolorist doesn't choose his medium because it is "better than" oil paint. Nor vice-versa. Both painters simply exploit the characteristics and abilities of their preferred medium. No one really has to "wait" until Affinity Designer has each and every tit-for-tat feature that so-called "industry leader" (gag me) Illustrator has, before buying it and getting profitable and enjoyable use from it (especially at its price).

I think you are making two totally unrelated points above. Painters choose their preferred medium because of it’s characteristics. Exactly, like a designer/illustrator chooses his software for the features it lets him/her create with. That has no relevance to measures of parity of feature sets. Your analogy only implies that the water-colourist may ‘make do’ until he/she can achieve all that can be done in oils – or vice versa.

Moving artwork between software can be a total pain in the arse most of the time, which is something Affinity acknowledges with their single file format! Rarely do designers have a huge tool-bag of different tools for different jobs as you simply don't have time to learn them all to a standard that makes it efficient and effective to jump from tool to tool – file translation problems aside. Clients certainly do not pay you to learn an application on the job! Workflows are more complicated than a feature of one application. Again, time after time, I've heard designers and illustrators talk about Affinity software as needing to achieve as much capability as the Creative Suite before they will entertain trying it as professional workflows are too important to risk. We are all slaves to tools we know (as our livelihood depends on it), so it needs to be something special to tempt users away. No excuse needed. I myself have all Affinity applications, and use them for odd little sideline jobs and to evaluate. I’m not using them as part of a professional workflow... yet.

Developers of ‘trusted’ third-party plug-ins are not fly-by-night bedroom developers (though there are a lot of them around), but mostly professional companies like Astute Graphics. The additional capabilities they add, even to mature software like Illustrator, can be game-changing. Often the standard technological approach of a tool can be less than optimum, and plug-ins can cure that by doing it ‘right’ and saving you time.

You have to recognise, as I do and made clear, yours is just one of thousands of opinions that has no more relevance than any others, notwithstanding the fact we all have different design workflows and requirements, so that's what informs our own view. Your viewpoint is interesting, but not one I share for the most part, though you seem to be making arguments as excuses for your own experience than anything wider than that. Where we both agree, I think, is that Affinity are ahead of all others when it comes to real alternatives to Adobe products, for now.

[SrPx]

Quote

Rarely do designers have a huge tool-bag of different tools

Hello !.... that's my very case.

[   I "spoilerized" all the text wall below, as was way too long....]

And I have published a number of comercial titles through the years. (video games, book illustrations, many graphic design works, design and illustration for board and card games, been a main -well, even one-man-band only, actually- doing every freaking stuff for all certain company needs in the graphic (print, web, web code) area. And more than 50% of my software was WAAAAY harder to use alternatives than Affinity's.  Open source and cheapo apps. Boss would not want to purchase expensive software. A pain as I had already been in a lot of companies using the standard top dogs. And trust me, I produced very advanced stuff, for way many years. It IS WAY more painful. But you can achieve excellent results, often blasting anything done with, say, the entire CC.  And I used things like Inkscape, Gimp, VirtualDub, Sony Vegas,  ffmepg, Blender, Wings3D, etc, etc. 

It IS the hardest path, I know. But is it doable? Hell, yeah. Soo.... with a bazillion better UI, way more features, like is the case with AD and AP...give me a break, it's a heaven's gift.

Also, despite being at Affinity forums, and hoping not to upset anyone from Serif, I'd say, nope, Affinity is not the only option, the previous ones were there already. Affinity has been positioned by a bunch of media, reviewers, blog articles, and pros (word of mouth), as the alternative. I believe it ultimately will be.  But today, Corel Draw package is still really good,  and Xara Designer Pro (but the full package, I have solid issues with the smaller ones, in terms of missing too important features (like happens in Adobe Elements, for example...) is the logic behind a LE, I get that,tho) . Issue is.... PRICE. Because Xara Pro is 300 $, and Corel Draw, which you can only buy as a suite, is 700 EUROS!. That besides it does not personally gives me much peace of mind to see how you don't get even a link to the desktop product in the xara site (if anyone googles for it, will find the page, of course, and be able to purchase it) you get some online solution, a subscription plan, and man, do I hate those....Like many of us (and judging by global reaction every freakin' where, that's a huge group of upset people). In the CD side, well, it's nice, and all...But again, 700 euros makes Affinity a no-brainer.  Consider is also the updates pricing, etc. Certain print related pros can't even think to use other thing than CD, not even the CC suite, due to their established workflows and how good that one is for very specific functionality, print related. IMO, part of the problem is that AP seems to be way focused in photography (despite the complaints) and just slightly less in print. While might be the opposite in the case of Xara and CD. Natural evolution will be to eliminate any doubt and polish anything in that area, too, though.

I think indeed, that WAY before than including Astute technology, or some advanced functionality, is better to keep polishing the current tools, till a point you would rarely see a "have a crash" , or "have this prob with the brushes"  in the forums ...true that the crashes are mostly cases of particular OS/libraries/drivers situations, but what apps devs typically do is prevent even those situations (even if is not code base's fault), and that's only won over time and experience with many systems scenarios (we get back again to the HUGE advantage of the top dog, not being only way more money and armies of devs, is also decades of having tons of bug reports! ). One of the reasons why some game devs prefer consoles ( I have had many breakfasts at the companies with these talks, obviously), for example, as it means way less factors to control, than a PC.

I would love if Astute technology would be included. OR (because maybe integrating that is not easy/doable in their code base)... just achieve similar, or even newer and equally or more surprising ways of doing... But imo, fighting for stability, solid workflow, fixing stuff, polishing current features....should be a maximum priority... Anyway, I'm nobody to give an opinion about this. Most of us aren't.... 

About the I/O issues with many tools... yeah, indeed. Is often a problem. But there are things that would worry me WAY more in the global picture, ie, if going back to the CC. Plus, I think is extremely unhealthy for us as a professional group ( I don't know anymore where do I fit, and I eliminated any shadow of impostor syndrome way long ago..) to not empower and even adapt our workflows to alternatives. I do know how to do stuff with the big brands. Of course, is extremely dangerous to get outdated in the usage of the top dog apps (jobs-wise, among those of us jumping every n years from freelancing to regular jobs)... but this can be solved with just being up to date with trials, or even just videos of the new features, staying in contact with what came new (didn't do that with Max, bad step). While using fully the alternatives. Or at least, depending on needs/activity/projects, partially.

By experience, and I mean, very professional experience, I know you really can use a bunch of tools of weird nature and very different UIs (it even trains your brain a lot) and still produce fast (not uber fast, but there are ways to compensate that) and produce with high quality.

Having worked with much harder (ie, Blender like it was in the old times, now is a joy in comparison) tools than Affinity, I totally see no issue, except for specific workflows where you badly need a non present feature, which neither can be done by workarounds. NONE in my usual workflows (well, mostly because I digital paint with other apps) , but yep in some print workflows, for example. 

I think leaving the impression that these ( Affinity's) are tools with which you can do only a few things, and mostly work with CC, is extremely wrong, sorry. Is a bit the opposite, they are very capable tools but there is a very small group of things you can't do, or can't do as well as with AI and PS. Because even if you don't have the equivalent features, you can do a lot with the core that is in AD and AP. If only I have had this core of tools back in 2006, 2012, let alone 96, 2000 (but yeah, that'd have no point as the 90's were too different from now. And Freehand will always be a jewel in my memory. CD was already there, too. But even between 2010 - 2014 I would have loved to have Affinity on my Windows machines. ).

IMO, and I do fully understand why a good bunch of people can't leave the CC, there is a third option, which is, use the CC if  you really need it (and is not merely a state of mind/habit) , but go slowly,progressively transferring your workflows to Affinity. If anything, is a good exercise for the brain, and any change of context and your usual comfort zone, makes you see stuff differently, and that often results in pushing creativity in many ways. I don't see as a terrible thing using the CC for some time, indeed, is the only possibility for many, but I'd reserve my time, weekly at least, to go transferring workflows. You know, even for what they say, for not having all eggs in one basket. I can fully do my work not just with Affinity or CC.Today I have a bunch of other options. And YEAH, I could adapt my workflows with many of those (using combos of apps). Have done so, and surely will have to do it again, every now and then. Not a terrible thing, IMO.

 

[JET_Affinity]

One can make a list of "deal-breaking missing features" which make it "impossible to switch to" any given drawing program. Guess which program is missing these essential features:

• Live shape primitives
• Dimension tools.
• Connector lines.
• User-defined drawing scales.
• User-defined diagonal grids.
• Ability to key multi-operator math expressions into value fields.
• Find/Replace a simple carriage return.
• Text frames that can be set to auto-fit their content.
• Proper paragraph rules.
• ...and much more.

Yep. Adobe Illustrator (at least as of CS6, the last version available as a traditional perpetual license).

Whether they realize it or not, just as users of other programs do, Illustrator users have continually limited their needs to the capabilities of Adobe Illustrator every day by working around its limitations. But they do so all the while proclaiming it the "professional industry standard" which serves "99% of users needs" by which anything else has to be measured and found lacking if it doesn't mirror every feature in every detail.

Features versus user's needs; which is the chicken and which is the egg?

But wait! There's a third party plug-in, say CAD Tools,  that saves the day by providing the functional sophistication that should be standard in the overpriced program in the first place, and that costs as much as or more than the host program.

I'm not knocking CAD Tools. But instead, one can pay half as much for a competitive side-grade to, say CorelDRAW Suite, and gain:

• The needed functionality in a cleanly-integrated standard feature set instead of tagged-on runaway tool glut.
• A plethora of additional software and assets.
• Hand's-on knowledge rather than mere hearsay when presuming to "compare" competing programs.

"Most popular" does not necessarily equate to "best." It often just means most ordinary.

JET