Jump to content
Muppet64

Affinity Designer Outline Issue/Bug

Recommended Posts

Hi Muppet64,
After ensuring you are using integer pixel values for widths/heights and X/Y coordinates always check the artwork at 100% zoom (or multiples). Arbitrary zoom levels may also show the gaps due to the scaling/resampling for screen even when the objects are fully aligned with the pixel grid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm... I've been looking at these suggestions now for a while, and they're all good but they're based on starting everything from scratch as well as torturing all work into fitting within Affinity Designers limitations in order to avoid it's in-built shortcomings.
With a small amount of experimentation, creating a pixel based document and then producing a 1mm square, this then measures 11.8px, which subsequently cannot reliably snap to another identical object...

So say for example: I have to create artwork that is to follow precise specifications for corporate identity where position and dimensions are stipulated to the millimetre. All I have to do is times any measurements for margin and position details by 11.8 to be correct, and then I can simply kiss goodbye to any hope of getting accurate snapping that won't risk an unsightly hairline gap.

Maybe I'm out of touch on this, but aside from video post-production I've never had anyone request work of me based on pixels, and even then it was the old PAL/NTSC spec or 720/1080 dimensions. I have no idea where 11.8 comes from, but it seems to be the route of these problems as it dictates that matching whole scaling is going to be a rare occurrence in real-world work.

It's fine for creating free form designs, but the insistence on a my-way-or-the-highway approach based on such an arbitrary number is just bizarre IMHO.

I'll keep pluging away at it, but I think anything that's got intricate contours to match other shapes will need careful thought rather than jumping in hopefully. o.O

Thanks for all the suggestions, they've helped me understand the underlying issue and I do appreciate and take on board your help and information. B|

11.8... 9_9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah right, the old standard for pre-press, so at least that mystery is solved, but it is still locked into a single setting, which is forced onto you by the developers with no option.

So the root of the issues I've been uncovering is because they've chosen to set it to a maximum quality setting that was showing it's age when I first came across it 30 years ago...

That would explain the artifacting I noticed with all my test output files, which I'd mentally noted to look into once I'd got the hang of the program.

So a way to overcome that might be to create the artwork at larger than life size, then reduce in the RIP to overcome the accuracy limitations.O.o

Thanks for that info owenr, appreciate it. B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

I think the point is that you need to ensure that all your objects are (a) aligned on pixel boundaries and (b) an integer number of pixels in size.

You have done (a). The only way you can ensure (b) is to work in px units, not mm units, so you can see the px dimensions accurately. As GabrielM mentioned above your sizes are not integer px values. Therefore you will get gaps.

I think it isn't a question of being "resolution independent" but of recognizing that when objects that are not an integer number of pixels in size they won't align properly to give you the seamless texture you need.

Thanks for that info, it's all falling into place after it was explained to me how the Devs have hard-wired in the old 300ppi print standard.

Cheers! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, owenr said:

No, you're not locked into 300 ppi. The last document you posted in this thread was 300, but you are free to set whatever pixel density you want.

 

Really, where's that setting?
You're right, that sort of fundamental fix would sort all of this out.

In my defence (again...:P) I've had the program since it was launched, but found the user guide rather rudimentary. I've only started looking at it properly over the last couple of months. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, owenr said:

 

The dimensions tab of Document Setup.

I never said that!

 

 

I meant from my point of view... ;-)

With that available I can experiment to get a working compromise. All I've seen so far is a document setting that offers a handful only going up to 400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, owenr said:

Type in any number you want. For example, 254.

Ah right, Since it appeared to be a simple drop down selection (plus labeled incorrectly DPI O.o) I'd not given it any further attention.

Thanks for that pointer, that's helped me a lot, Cheers! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, owenr said:

I agree that's a bad decision since it promotes the confusion many people have regarding DPI and PPI.

Yes, very poor choice as it's the reason it never occurred to me that it could be changed, because DPI would only be relevant at the printing stage.

Thanks for the heads up on that, you've solved my whole problem I think because I can (in theory) create a resolution PPI(sic) that will hopefully bring the shape/object snapping back in line.

Whereas the Affinity support were only attempting to get me changing everything I do fundamentally to fit in with how they've set the defaults. o.O

Cheers!!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Muppet64 said:

Whereas the Affinity support were only attempting to get me changing everything I do fundamentally to fit in with how they've set the defaults

No, they were trying to help you understand that the coordinates of your objects and their sizes in pixels are critical to making the designs you want to make.


-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 1903 (18362.239), 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00Gz, GeForce GTX 970
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.471 and 1.7.3.476 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.7.2.471 and 1.7.3.476 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.7.2.471 and 1.7.3.475 Beta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

No, they were trying to help you understand that the coordinates of your objects and their sizes in pixels are critical to making the designs you want to make.

Perhaps that was their intention, but it did not come across in their tone, and they did not offer any guidance - it was simply a series of repetitive variations on the theme 'You're not doing it our way! Do it our way!"

It did not help that they chose to misname the PPI setting as DPI, so when I was searching for a relevant setting to check and test I could not identify it.

This all came about as a result of me finding a glitch that they now have on their list to fix.
I did understand the points they kept making, but their replies just kept circling around the same thing. i.e. "Do it our way. Use Pixels, not standard print measurements.", and my opinion remains that they offered no real help, just repeated advice to do it some other way.

Owenr has been particularly helpful in this instance, and patient enough to not call me an idiot.

I have no problem understanding that resolution and pixels density are linked, but to find that pixels trump everything as far as they are concerned, with not even a mention of how to tailor the pixel setting is what lead to my rather circular meanderings. If they'd said in the first instance that there was a pixel setting that could be tailored to to suit then I'd have gone straight to that and experimented.

I'll look at this further tomorrow, but now I've actually been given the necessary information I'll refrain from further posts.

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

×

Important Information

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.