Jump to content
JGD

Formally add the “universal layer” concept; add an “Automatically move objects to and from artboards” toggle; optionally, make said toggle's disabled state the default behaviour when “Edit All Layers” toggle is also disabled

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, JGD said:

It is a bit of a deal breaker on a philosophical level, which I already explained at great length and depth. Affinity Designer makes a lot of decisions for you, without allowing you to opt-out of them. And those aren't just mildly irksome decisions; they preclude entire workflows and make other tasks take 10 times longer than they needed to. If there is one thing many creatives hate, that would be being “boxed-in”, so to speak, and even if Ai is a cumbersome, crufty old dog of an app, if you use it for long enough you'll find it's almost as good in that “out-of-your-way” way as FreeHand was.

Yes, the “FreeHand forever” crowd will cry bloody murder and accuse me of straight up heresy, but please bear with me here; I did start on FreeHand, after all, and I know the comparison I'm making isn't spurious or exaggerated. FH and Ai (and even CorelDRAW!) are much closer in UX philosophy to one another than Designer is to them. And Designer veered off of that path not in a good way, but in a “let's reinvent the wheel to make this more palatable to digital illustrators working on iPads” kind of way. Interestingly, Photo is much closer to Photoshop and GIMP, and Publisher also much closer to InDesign and QuarkXPress, than Designer is to… well, anything else. So I fail to see the big advantage of Serif's choices for Designer's document model, but especially making them the only ones available.

Not that I have anything against those choices or that crowd (far from it! I have the utmost respect for illustrators, just because and also for personal reasons, as I've said elsewhere here in the forums), but I've just demonstrated that with a few checkboxes or a light rethinking of a panel or two, as you've also said, Serif could easily accommodate both camps, like, yesterday. That's what makes these limitations and their stubbornness in not addressing them as a top priority so depressing and frustrating.

In the time since I responded to your post I've come to agree more that a universal layer system is necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Publisher has it either, which I assumed it would since it works with multipage documents. The lack of a layer system as we've come to expect over the last 15 years or so tends to bollox up simple stuff, like keystroking objects from the top of the stack to the bottom. In transitioning from InDesign that lack will hover somewhere between "deal breaker" and "this kinda sucks, but I only paid $50." I'm not sure how far Affinity can go as the "only $50" program.

I should acknowledge though, that in the book publishing office where I work, our other designer never uses layers or the automated footnotes, TOC, or indexing features that InDesign offers. At the end of the day each designer requires or ignores what they choose although it may make no logical sense to me personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dcrosby said:

In the time since I responded to your post I've come to agree more that a universal layer system is necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Publisher has it either, which I assumed it would since it works with multipage documents.

You are absolutely correct in your assertion. But Publisher at least allows you to have an object straddling two adjacent pages (i.e., in DTP parlance, a “spread”), over the spine. Good luck doing something similar in Designer! And I stand by my use case, like that imposition one. Being able to do so in Designer won't steal Publisher's thunder, and if it did for 1% of its potential buyers, well… it would be negligible compared to the damage this general unintuitiveness causes to the perception some people may have of Designer itself. In my case that perception is currently so very bad, I'm even boycotting it for the time being, as I've said before. And if that's Serif's reasoning for sticking to this horrid model (again, that seemed to be the case with the infamous “Baselinegate”, but I surely hope in this case it just comes down to how hard it may be to rethink the entire thing without breaking stuff for the users), it shows a deep lack of confidence in Publisher itself and on its dedicated DTP features.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: no one in their right mind, and who knows how to operate a DTP app, would or should ever attempt doing anything but the simplest 4-page leaflet or accordion flyer on something like Adobe Illustrator or Affinity Designer. Even with styles, baseline grids, etc. All the fiddling necessary to make up for the lack of even more basic stuff like master pages adds too much overhead for that entire exercise in futility to be worth skipping the additional $40 for the Publisher license, period. I sometimes make as much in an hour, and even if you're doing some pro-bono work, I mean… have some self-respect and plunk the money for it. But for certain really bizarre, artsy, or otherwise specialty projects, coaxing Designer or Illustrator to kinda work like a DTP app is the only sensible option, as DTP apps have, by default, other insurmountable limitations of their own.

On a more deeply philosophical level, I've always seen Illustrator as this kind of “sandbox” where you can play and go crazy, do stupid and exotic stuff that otherwise wouldn't make much sense in a production environment, and InDesign as its more “serious” brother, which reins you in and forces you to stick to all the dictums and rules of the classic printing press. Makes sense to you? My main issue with Affinity Designer is that it is also trying to rein me in and make a digital illustrator out of me, or something, instead of letting me roam free, like Ai.

9 hours ago, dcrosby said:

The lack of a layer system as we've come to expect over the last 15 years or so tends to bollox up simple stuff, like keystroking objects from the top of the stack to the bottom. In transitioning from InDesign that lack will hover somewhere between "deal breaker" and "this kinda sucks, but I only paid $50." I'm not sure how far Affinity can go as the "only $50" program.

I also fully subscribe to this, but I should add that “26 years” is a bit more precise (Illustrator 5, launched in 1993 for the Classic Mac OS, was the first version to feature Layers, and I'm willing to bet they didn't change much in behaviour since then). That's precisely my issue with some of Serif's decisions, i.e. reinventing the wheel and indefinitely postponing fixes for them or addressing criticism, thus letting users hanging and waiting for 4/5 years, while pumping the app full of steroid-like features. Yes, it's super exciting and attracts new users, and also enables new workflows, absolutely, but it doesn't bode well to certain kinds of even modest “power” users.

And many people here have said they wouldn't mind paying a bit more (some even say as much as twice the current price) if that meant these essential features were added. Nobody here is expecting Serif to hire more staff and make miracles, like suddenly introducing shape blends, auto-trace, multi-line composer and whatever thingamabob some are also yearning for, because many of us know about (hey, at least I do) the Mythical Man-Month (i.e. the diminishing returns when adding more people to software development teams), but at least we'd like to see a slightly different set of priorities. As the impressive underdog that they are, Serif, at its most boring, would still likely be more exciting and enticing than Adobe, that much I'm sure of.

9 hours ago, dcrosby said:

I should acknowledge though, that in the book publishing office where I work, our other designer never uses layers or the automated footnotes, TOC, or indexing features that InDesign offers. At the end of the day each designer requires or ignores what they choose although it may make no logical sense to me personally.

Oh, this. You're also right on the money. I remember when working at my only full-time job as a graphic designer that my work colleague didn't even snap objects to guidelines ( :o ), and many of my fellow colleagues at the Uni didn't even know how to add them in the first place in the first and second years of their BFA. Then again, it also took me years to find out about Smart Guides, the Knife tool and Live Paint (I only learnt of them in 2006, when on my Erasmus, while watching some Italian girl doing an intricate vector illustration in Ai and being completely mesmerised at her work speed), and only when working at that company did I learn certain advanced features in InDesign. I was basically trying to save time, and frantically googling for solutions to new problems every week (usually, the “R&D” did pay off, and today I can say that I likely take advantage of most dedicated ID features for any particular use case, instead of doing crazy stuff by hand like I did before, because I incorporate that research into my process even if the object I'm working on is anything like something that I already did some years prior; much like when doing academic work, like writing papers or preparing classes, I revisit, question and, if necessary, revise my own workflows in order to constantly optimise them).

Yes, YMMV, but, just like the Dark Side, once you taste the power… you can never go back. It's just sheer insanity, not just from a psychological standpoint (because working “against” an app can really drive you mad), but also from an economic one. You do the math, and boom, there goes another month's worth of a CC subscription, still totally worth it regardless of its cruftiness…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, JGD said:

Yes, YMMV, but once you taste the power… you can never go back. It's just sheer insanity, not just from a psychological standpoint (because it can really drive you mad), but also from an economic one. You do the math, and boom, there goes another month of a CC subscription, totally worth it regardless of its cruftiness..

I'll have to admit I'm still pimpin' CS6 at home. We finally got CC at work though I haven't upgraded past CC17. I could install CC at home legally but choose not to because I don't want my personal files and workflow under Adobe's subscription. So I generally compare Affinity to CS6 and can still use the old apps if necessary. I use Designer a lot and plan on getting Photo soon. I'm sure I won't get Publisher for a version or 2 because I expect it to take time to mature and I don't do much page layout at home. I hope they reconsider their layer implementation but Adobe CC really isn't an option for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 1:38 AM, dcrosby said:

I'll have to admit I'm still pimpin' CS6 at home. We finally got CC at work though I haven't upgraded past CC17. I could install CC at home legally but choose not to because I don't want my personal files and workflow under Adobe's subscription. So I generally compare Affinity to CS6 and can still use the old apps if necessary. I use Designer a lot and plan on getting Photo soon. I'm sure I won't get Publisher for a version or 2 because I expect it to take time to mature and I don't do much page layout at home. I hope they reconsider their layer implementation but Adobe CC really isn't an option for me.

I completely get where you're coming from. But I take it you're on a Windows PC, right? If that's the case, I actually somewhat envy you. On a Mac, with all of Apple's transitions, Retina screens, etc., sticking to CS6 isn't really an option. Heck, I also own a CS5 Design Standard licence, and it's not that limited in features when compared with the latest versions of CC, but it just won't run on my current Mac by default. :P And from everything I've read recently, CS6 is also about to “die” on the Mac. Sure, you could run it in a VM… But the same can be said of FreeHand (hey, I tried it here on my computer the other day, it works!) and, yet… you wouldn't really want to do that for serious work after a while. Not on a laptop, that's for sure.

As for being stuck with CC, that's also an issue for me, but I did migrate a lot of work successfully from Corel to FreeHand, and then from FreeHand and Quark to InDesign and Illustrator, so doing it once more to Affinity isn't that big of a deal (if I didn't manage to migrate everything before switching for good, and later had to open some really old file, I could in theory pay for one month of subscription and convert a few more old projects/templates left behind, absorb the cost into the project budget and be done with it). Except I can't even begin that migration process, because Designer doesn't work at all for me, and Publisher, as you said, isn't “finished” yet.

But I did buy them in their incomplete/flawed incarnations, and participated in any Betas I was let in, because I wanted (and still do) to give them a hand – both financially and in the form of direct feedback – and stay ahead of the curve (despite all its failings and recent delays, I really do believe Affinity will become an alternative standard of sorts, kind of like the Mac is in general and Corel actually is in some market niches, so using those betas was never an exclusively altruistic exercise). And I can pretty much guarantee you that the day Designer is “fixed” (for me, at least), I'll be installing that update/beta faster than you can say “universal layers” and using it for… something, at least (I'm not using betas for production work, as I'm a bit wiser than that, but at least I'll be performing my test routines, as usual).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm truly sorry to hear that Designer can't work for you. The older I get the more disappointed I get with technology in general. Back in the late 80s and 90s I was the kid talking to the old guys in our in-house print shop and wondering why they didn't want to just dump their analog work flow and outfit the shop with a bunch of shiny new Macs. Maybe they knew something that I'm only just realizing. That I was embarking on a never ending roller coaster of upgrades, updates, learning, relearning, buying, rebuying, etc., forever. I never really owned the means of production, of making a living, I was renting and even my hardware functioned at the will of the upgrade cycle. This was made even more clear by Adobe's recent gank move to have control of you, your files, and your lively hood forever. Kind of a digital sharecropping when you think about it. "Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the Adobe store." Lol.

Just so you know, I am on a Mac. An older one that dates back to Obama's first term and using Sierra. CS6 does work for me but I know it's days are numbered. I hold Apple in pretty much the same regard as Adobe these days. I'll hold on to the HW and SW combo as long as possible though and slowly transition to Affinity and accept it's quirks. You've stated your case and I agree. If others agree they should say so and maybe Serif will see the light. If they remain silent then maybe my opinion (and yours) is faulty. In any case, it is what it is. "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right". Affinity or Adobe, our choice. And for some reason Quark is still not an option.

Share this post


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

You've stated your case and I agree. If others agree they should say so and maybe Serif will see the light. If they remain silent then maybe my opinion (and yours) is faulty.

As you can see from the threads linked above, there are at least a few Publisher users who share the same opinion. Don’t be fooled by the fact that they call “global layers” what is called “universal layers” here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to add that I agree that the Layers concept needs to be overhauled. I've also voiced my opinion in several of the linked threads, but this is another one, and here is the thread I started myself a long time ago when I find started using Layers.

Quote from the first thread I linked to:

Quote

I started another small project this weekend and the more items I added into my file, the more I got frustrated with how Layers work. The thing is, they're not really Layers in the Layers Panel; they are Objects. The first thing I did was turn off auto-scrolling which helped slightly, then I created ACTUAL layers and moved the objects logically into the layers. With this setup, it behaves more like Illustrator. I haven't even ventured into multi-page documents, but I know at my day job, having ACTUAL layers is a must-have and Publisher simply wouldn't cut it.

 A moderator at one point mentioned that they are indeed working on "global layers" and to wait to provide feedback one they have it implemented.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeremy Bohn said:

I just wanted to add that I agree that the Layers concept needs to be overhauled. I've also voiced my opinion in several of the linked threads, but this is another one, and here is the thread I started myself a long time ago when I find started using Layers.

Quote from the first thread I linked to:

 

Good to hear. Thanks for the clarification and glad their listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AD does not distinguish between a layer and an object *except* that an object in the layer panel is followed by the type of object in italics (e.g., curve). This is one of the many strengths of AD in my opinion. Illustrator frustrates me for many reasons but one of them is the fact that an object cannot be at the same level as a top layer. Having layers and objects at the same level is very natural once one notices the above. As for Publisher, it is not meant to be another AD. In my view having the Layer/Object both available in the top layer in AD is critical. As for Freehand, I used it for many years, and now I feel that at last I am back home. AD designers are open-minded and responsive to us, but please do not encourage them to take us back to Illustrator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jim Monson said:

AD does not distinguish between a layer and an object *except* that an object in the layer panel is followed by the type of object in italics (e.g., curve). This is one of the many strengths of AD in my opinion. Illustrator frustrates me for many reasons but one of them is the fact that an object cannot be at the same level as a top layer. Having layers and objects at the same level is very natural once one notices the above. As for Publisher, it is not meant to be another AD. In my view having the Layer/Object both available in the top layer in AD is critical. As for Freehand, I used it for many years, and now I feel that at last I am back home. AD designers are open-minded and responsive to us, but please do not encourage them to take us back to Illustrator. 

Ha! Of course I'm not encouraging them in that direction. :o I'm all for choice and, if they play their cards right, they can absolutely offer something akin to Illustrator's “Like [insert program name]” workspaces/keyboard shortcut sets, except even better. You'll see what I'm talking about when I start pumping out more demo videos.

I mean, it wouldn't necessarily have to be as automated and pre-made as those, and users certainly would find an even better middle ground especially if forced to get to those toggles one by one, by hand, but the choice, if and when possible to add without cluttering the interface too much, should be there.

Or, to put it more succinctly, I want us to have our cake and eat it too (pardon the recently politically-loaded expression, but it's really the best I could come up with at almost 5:30 AM :P ).

As for the other stuff you've mentioned, I'm a bit intrigued. Well, AD's layer panel does seem to offer more information, that's for sure. But the model is so borked that I'd take Ai's version over it any day of the week, sorry. Maybe I'm so biased against AD's panel that I can't really appreciate its advantages (because, indeed, I can't use it for any extended period of time in a complex project that makes use of it), but I'll be sure to check it out closely one of these days. Still, I do think I recall what you've mentioned (in fact, Universal/Global layers should also, per my demos, be labeled as such in italic, so there's that), and yet I don't feel it'll swing the needle much. :|

Share this post


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

I started another small project this weekend and the more items I added into my file, the more I got frustrated with how Layers work. The thing is, they're not really Layers in the Layers Panel; they are Objects. The first thing I did was turn off auto-scrolling which helped slightly, then I created ACTUAL layers and moved the objects logically into the layers. With this setup, it behaves more like Illustrator. I haven't even ventured into multi-page documents, but I know at my day job, having ACTUAL layers is a must-have and Publisher simply wouldn't cut it.

Ah, yes. You put it exactly the same way as I did. And that's what I would do, too, and what I did when performing these little tests. Except I immediately stumbled into the sheer incompatibility between that workaround and artboards' default behaviour of “sucking” objects into them, as I've demonstrated.

In fact, to get around that, I even considered fooling AD into behaving like Ai by using “pseudo-artboards/pages”, i.e. by just creating a bottommost “Artboards” layer and manually adding rectangles to size on it. Only when exporting the finished artwork would I then add artboards in their place, but of course, that would be a pain if I had lots of them, as I'd have to undo and redo the entire operation when doing any further edits. 9_9

While for some projects that might work, there's a point where it would get too complicated and slow for no good reason, when a checkbox would achieve the same thing with zero fuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 9:34 PM, A_B_C said:

As you can see from the threads linked above, there are at least a few Publisher users who share the same opinion. Don’t be fooled by the fact that they call “global layers” what is called “universal layers” here. :)

Indeed, you're absolutely right. I don't know how we should go about it, but maybe thread merging should become a thing here in the forums. Don't you think?

And if the mods won't do it, maybe we should organise ourselves via cross-linking and proposing to the OP of the sacrificial/deprecated thread to add those links in the first post and lock it (if that is even possible… maybe it's exclusively the mods' prerogative, and I would totally understand if it was).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 2:31 PM, dcrosby said:

I'm truly sorry to hear that Designer can't work for you. The older I get the more disappointed I get with technology in general. Back in the late 80s and 90s I was the kid talking to the old guys in our in-house print shop and wondering why they didn't want to just dump their analog work flow and outfit the shop with a bunch of shiny new Macs. Maybe they knew something that I'm only just realizing. That I was embarking on a never ending roller coaster of upgrades, updates, learning, relearning, buying, rebuying, etc., forever. I never really owned the means of production, of making a living, I was renting and even my hardware functioned at the will of the upgrade cycle. This was made even more clear by Adobe's recent gank move to have control of you, your files, and your lively hood forever. Kind of a digital sharecropping when you think about it. "Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the Adobe store." Lol.

Just so you know, I am on a Mac. An older one that dates back to Obama's first term and using Sierra. CS6 does work for me but I know it's days are numbered. I hold Apple in pretty much the same regard as Adobe these days. I'll hold on to the HW and SW combo as long as possible though and slowly transition to Affinity and accept it's quirks. You've stated your case and I agree. If others agree they should say so and maybe Serif will see the light. If they remain silent then maybe my opinion (and yours) is faulty. In any case, it is what it is. "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right". Affinity or Adobe, our choice. And for some reason Quark is still not an option.

Man, ouchie. As a long-time-ish Mac guy as well (I started out on a “sunflower” iMac G4 running Jaguar, back in Dec. 2003, so not as long as you did, and the earliest Mac I remember ever seeing was a colleague's Mac Color Classic running System 7 back in 1994, but still; that experience, as well as using Digital Research's GEM – which was still very advanced even in its crippled, post-Apple lawsuit state – at my elementary school back in 1991, a full year before using the relatively basic Windows 3.0/3.1 at home from 1992 onwards, did ensure that I knew Windows 95 was, in fact, the proverbial Emperor's New Clothes and firmly established the Mac as a mythical tech creature on the back of my head), I feel your pain.

As for the transition… it'll happen some day. I hope you can do yours successfully and sooner rather than later, really. As for mine… Maybe after my PhD? That would actually feel right, because I'll be entertained with yet another shiny, unrelated thing for quite a while very soon. Maybe second time's the charm? It'd make for a great “race”, to see if I can finish my thesis faster than Serif can “finish” Affinity… ;)

And Quark, man… Archaic as it may be, what a waste! Well, it's not really an option because they are still in the business of price-gouging their users. They're not Adobe, but those prices are still insane, and they only get away with them because all those big companies which produce boring manuals are completely dependent upon them, ha. Some things never change, I guess… :P But if Serif ever developed a working qxp-to-afpub file converter, after adding all those boring features I and others keep harking on, they'd be dead in a month, that's for sure. xD

Share this post


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

 A moderator at one point mentioned that they are indeed working on "global layers" and to wait to provide feedback one they have it implemented.

10 hours ago, dcrosby said:

Good to hear. Thanks for the clarification and glad their listening.

Amen to that! I'd react to both your posts, but I've already spent all my reacts for the day.

By the way, @Jeremy Bohn, do you have a link for the post from the mod which you've mentioned? I obviously trust you, but would love to see it in context. If you can't find it, I can obviously do a search in the forums for it myself later on if I have the time, so if it's too much work don't bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JGD said:

By the way, @Jeremy Bohn, do you have a link for the post from the mod which you've mentioned? I obviously trust you, but would love to see it in context. If you can't find it, I can obviously do a search in the forums for it myself later on if I have the time, so if it's too much work don't bother.

On this page.

Screen Shot 2019-07-18 at 12.05.39 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JGD said:

They're not Adobe, but those prices are still insane

Yeah, the price of QXP is rather high...  consider though that the single-app price for InDesign is $21/month.  You can get the three-year QXP advantage plan right now since 2019 just came out, using the competitive upgrade from a product you already have (PagePlus qualifies and can still be purchased for @25), for $750.  That includes all major version upgrades within those three years.  The single-app price for an InDesign subscription is $20.99/month, which works out to $755.64...  so over a 3-year period it is about the same, except that QXP is a perpetual license, so if you stop paying, you keep the version you have, while with InDesign, you lose it.

 

Oh, that and the upgrade prices after you have a QXP license are lower... so pushing it past 3 years the price advantage QXP has over InDesign increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Yeah, the price of QXP is rather high...  consider though that the single-app price for InDesign is $21/month.  You can get the three-year QXP advantage plan right now since 2019 just came out, using the competitive upgrade from a product you already have (PagePlus qualifies and can still be purchased for @25), for $750.  That includes all major version upgrades within those three years.  The single-app price for an InDesign subscription is $20.99/month, which works out to $755.64...  so over a 3-year period it is about the same, except that QXP is a perpetual license, so if you stop paying, you keep the version you have, while with InDesign, you lose it.

 

Oh, that and the upgrade prices after you have a QXP license are lower... so pushing it past 3 years the price advantage QXP has over InDesign increases.

In a "Rent-A-Center" economy, the ability to scrape up the cash necessary for the initial purchase is daunting. That's why many consider Adobe's subscription affordable (until the digital repo man shows up).

My question is whether these programs are worth the money they've convinced us they are worth. Since we're not dealing with physical goods, the price charged is based on what? Coding? online distribution? marketing? All of the above? The price is not totally arbitrary but the core functionality of many apps can be found in a $10 smart phone these days. Their software is not worth what they previously charged with perpetual licensing. I believe that users realizing that their copies of CS4 were damn good enough was why Adobe created a forced upgrade plan.

The existence and hopefully success of Affinity's low price model along with open source projects such as Blender, Gimp, Krita and others should drive down the retail cost of such software through simple supply and demand. I hope that comes to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, do you have a link for the post from the mod which you've mentioned? I obviously trust you, but would love to see it in context. If you can't find it, I can obviously do a search in the forums for it myself later on if I have the time, so if it's too much work don't bother.

Miguel (MEB) also confirmed that global layers are coming:

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/66164-wrong-layer-concept-for-an-layout-application/&tab=comments#comment-400240

So maybe it is just a matter of a little patience indeed. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A_B_C said:

By the way, do you have a link for the post from the mod which you've mentioned? I obviously trust you, but would love to see it in context. If you can't find it, I can obviously do a search in the forums for it myself later on if I have the time, so if it's too much work don't bother.

Miguel (MEB) also confirmed that global layers are coming:

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/66164-wrong-layer-concept-for-an-layout-application/&tab=comments#comment-400240

So maybe it is just a matter of a little patience indeed. :)

 

Yeah, indeed. This one would be a big, big one. I mean, with this feature, Designer would finally earn a proper recommendation (with some serious caveats, of course; the whole lack of selection tools being the other biggie), and getting it ready for 1.x would be a real token of goodwill towards current customers.

But if it's only coming in v.2, at this point I really don't mind much and feel that it wouldn't hurt their bottom line either. I mean, there are at most only two point updates to go before it (unless Serif goes the Mac OS X/OS X/macOS route and drops a v.1.10 on us, but it's been so long since v.1.0 that I seriously doubt it… With the elapsed time between major versions as it is now, I'm starting to feel that even with all their limitations, Affinity apps are a bit too affordable, really, and maybe the only reason why they're taking so long to get to v.2 was the staggered releases of the three components, which will become synced and maybe even yearly from then on).

In fact, pre-announcing it, complete with a public feature set, and Osborning themselves a bit (or retroactively offering discounts for people who bought v.1 x months before the v.2 launch) might even earn them some extra goodwill points towards new users.

Whatever they choose to do, getting this thing out of the door is what really matters. Bring it on, I say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jowday said:

Summer 2019 post:

image.png.3bd8583fbc13fee3267e2559d094768c.png

Asuming that they will launch 2.0 right after 1.9, that might be the case.

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 7/20/2019 at 10:36 PM, Jowday said:

Summer 2019 post:

image.png.3bd8583fbc13fee3267e2559d094768c.png

I suppose 10 u is… Norwegian for 10 hours? So… if you took this screenshot this summer, it can't be older than a month, am I right?

Hm. So that makes it 3/4 years from now? As in, 3x18 months for 1.8, 1.9 and 2.0 to be ready? That makes it absurdly affordable, even more so than I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JGD said:

I suppose 10 u is… Norwegian for 10 hours? So… if you took this screenshot this summer, it can't be older than a month, am I right?

Hm. So that makes it 3/4 years from now? As in, 3x18 months for 1.8, 1.9 and 2.0 to be ready? That makes it absurdly affordable, even more so than I thought.

10 weeks - I posted the date in another thread but it is from second quarter of 2019.

Absurdly affordable indeed. If your time has no value.


"Men are like sheep, of which a flock is more easily driven than a single one."

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

×