Jump to content

Wasted 209,33€ because of —your— app bug!


Recommended Posts

Just to share a bad experience, even after almost 20 years in the creation process…
Hope this can serve someone else than me.

Hi dear Affinity Team,

Almost since the beginning of your adventure, I'm a big fan of your apps.
Bought them all, trash any single piece of Adobe files on my system, I just love your work.
 
Well… until today…
A few days ago, I've designed an Affinity Designer file, which contain 3 very precisely scaled shapes planned to be laser cut (document set in cm).
The laser company needed separated files, so, for each of the three shapes to be cut:
• I copied the group shape and pasted it on a new document (⌘ ⌥ ⇧ n).
• Saved the new document for reference and exported it to PDF.
• Sent it to cut to the company.
 
I paid 209,33€ for the job (inox plates, 2mm thick)
 
Today, I received the plates, and they are too small!!! I immediately checked my exported files, and indeed, they are too small!!!
So:
Yes, this is my fault for not having double checked the exported files and the company has made no mistake, so their is nothing I can complain
 BUT, YOU changed the scale during the copy/paste process!!! Why such a bug exist??? I was trusting you, didn't pay attention… This bug can be reproduced at will, cannot believe it!!!
 
I'm absolutely revolted right now, both against me by my excess of confidence in the quality of your work, and by you because your lack costed me so much money!
 
I don't know what to think anymore.
 
Regards

WebSite.pngTwitter.png500px.pngFlickr.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once made a mistake in a drawing and ran 1000 units. A bit more wasted cost than 209,33€. It was a different mistake in a different software. But totally my fault. The shop doing the cutting's moto is "We make it exactly like your file." And they did. I have always checked my output files before and since...but the mistake I made slipped through.

I don't know why the scale was different between your two files. The only time I have had size weirdness in Affinity software was related to the document DPIs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I don't know why the scale was different between your two files. The only time I have had size weirdness in Affinity software was related to the document DPIs.

Without seeing the files, a difference in the document DPIs does seem the likeliest explanation.

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for Windows • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for iPad • iPadOS 17.5.1 (iPad 7th gen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"because of —your— app bug!"

Why do you say - in application is bug? The fact, that the application behaves differently than you expected and did not verify the result, is just your fault.

Affinity Store (MSI/EXE): Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 2.5.5.2636 (Retail)
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080, Windows 11 Pro, Version 23H2, Build 22631.4317.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080, Windows 11 Pro, Version 23H2, Build 22631.4317.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200, Windows 10 Pro, Version 21H1, Build 19043.2130.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever a new trainee is assigned to work with me, there are two things I always teach them:

1. Where the restroom is

2. Don’t take anything for granted

Best regards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pšenda said:

"because of —your— app bug!"

Why do you say - in application is bug? The fact, that the application behaves differently than you expected and did not verify the result, is just your fault.

« Sorry that you have experienced this issue, it is one we are aware of and it's been passed over to the developers to investigate further. »
--> My yesterday e-mail answer.

Wait, did I said it wasn't my fault (too)?
Funny…

From now on, since any new document is default created at 96dpi, I'll make sure to never ever change that in case I've some copy/paste to handle (plus checking triple… as I was always doing before in the end…).

BTW Affinity team, when you'll fix this bug, please also keep the unit preferences, color, etc. When you're working on a "mm" unit document, and ⌘ ⌥ ⇧ n to create a new one, make sure to keep those units set on the new document. Chances are quite high the user will have to continue working following the same document definition.

WebSite.pngTwitter.png500px.pngFlickr.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tazintosh said:

Wait, did I said it wasn't my fault (too)?

No, in title your topic no.

59 minutes ago, Tazintosh said:

when you'll fix this bug

Sorry, but I still don't think it's a "bug". Does Serif somewhere claim to copy images from the System Clipboard at the same resolution as they were inserted? It is certainly impractical for users, but unfortunately quite logical - the OS (through which the Clipboard is data copied) works at 96 DPI. However, Serif acknowledges the impracticality of this procedure and modifies/improvement it.

Affinity Store (MSI/EXE): Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 2.5.5.2636 (Retail)
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080, Windows 11 Pro, Version 23H2, Build 22631.4317.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080, Windows 11 Pro, Version 23H2, Build 22631.4317.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200, Windows 10 Pro, Version 21H1, Build 19043.2130.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pšenda said:

However, Serif acknowledges the impracticality of this procedure and modifies/improvement it.

Right. In that referenced thread the user claimed it's a bug. Serif said it's an area that could be improved, but did not agree that it's a bug.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
    Laptop 2: Windows 11 Pro 24H2,  16GB memory, Snapdragon(R) X Elite - X1E80100 - Qualcomm(R) Oryon(TM) 12 Core CPU 4.01 GHz, Qualcomm(R) Adreno(TM) X1-85 GPU
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 18.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sequoia 15.0.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tazintosh said:
A few days ago, I've designed an Affinity Designer file, which contain 3 very precisely scaled shapes planned to be laser cut (document set in cm).
The laser company needed separated files, so, for each of the three shapes to be cut:
• I copied the group shape and pasted it on a new document (⌘ ⌥ ⇧ n).
• Saved the new document for reference and exported it to PDF.
• Sent it to cut to the company.

One of the best tools in Designer is Slices. You should not have gone back and created a new document and copy and paste in to it as that can cause problems - just like it can in Indesign or Illustrator. I would assume that the resolution is the issue. I try to keep all at 300 no matter what. Never let programs guess what resolution it should be. I have a strange issue with logos between documents that sometimes the stroke will get very thick from one document pasted to another. I don't know why but it does. 

I just tried to copy and paste between documents and I couldn't get it to change size even though the documents were different resolution and size. I tried rasterizing the object and it made no difference rom copy and pasting.

Here is the solution I would do in your case:

Use artboards for each of the graphics in the same file. Name the artboard what you want the file name to be. Go to Slices and select all 3 artboards then choose the PDF for Print export (or PDF X/4) then choose export slices. It will name them all for you and keeps everything nice and neat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue that a long time ago I railed about is that there is even a document dpi. If there wasn't a document dpi as implemented, there wouldn't be this particular issue at all. If there is even a vector application with such a thing, I haven't used it. 

This applies to both AD & APub. Just damn silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

The issue that a long time ago I railed about is that there is even a document dpi. If there wasn't a document dpi as implemented, there wouldn't be this particular issue at all. If there is even a vector application with such a thing, I haven't used it. 

This applies to both AD & APub. Just damn silly.

Coreldraw has a document dpi, and Illustrator does not.  This makes for a very real difference in how these programs handle pixels and ppi.  Both will eventually have the right result but it can be confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kuttyjoe said:

Coreldraw has a document dpi, and Illustrator does not.  This makes for a very real difference in how these programs handle pixels and ppi.  Both will eventually have the right result but it can be confusing.

CD has a rendering resolution and only applies to images/effects contained in the file (end for exporting to an image format), which also can be changed properly at export if one wants a higher/lesser resolution. Which is the same/similar to AI's document effects resolution and its export.

Neither AI (CS6) nor CD have a new from clipboard, so the results are not really comparable to what is happening here in AD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2019 at 11:18 AM, MikeW said:

CD has a rendering resolution and only applies to images/effects contained in the file (end for exporting to an image format), which also can be changed properly at export if one wants a higher/lesser resolution. Which is the same/similar to AI's document effects resolution and its export.

Neither AI (CS6) nor CD have a new from clipboard, so the results are not really comparable to what is happening here in AD.

Resolution is always only applied to images/effects, not vectors as they are resolution independent.

Here is the big difference between the two programs.  Changing the rendering resolution in Coreldraw changes the physical document size so it's not only used for export.  Changing the raster effects resolution in Illustrator does not change the physical page size.  Functionally, Coreldraw seems to be more logical.  For example, if you create a new document in both programs that is 300px X 300px, at 300ppi, Coreldraw will present you a document which is 1" X 1", if you view it in inches.  This is logical.  Illustrator will present you a document which is 4.17"  X  4.17", which is incorrect.  You can go back and change the rendering resolution in both programs, but in Illustrator it has no effect on the document size.  Furthermore, when you export this document from Illustrator, at any resolution, you're still getting an image that is 4.17" x 4.17".  If you render it at 72ppi, you can open this file in Photoshop, go to Image Size, uncheck resample, then change the resolution to 300 and finally you will have your 1" x 1" document, which is the correct size.  This is the reason I say that they are doing things differently.  Coreldraw's rendering effects deals with both raster effects like drop shadows AND physical document size.  Illustrator only deals with the effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kuttyjoe said:

Functionally, Coreldraw seems to be more logical.  For example, if you create a new document in both programs that is 300px X 300px, at 300ppi, Coreldraw will present you a document which is 1" X 1", if you view it in inches.  This is logical.  Illustrator will present you a document which is 4.17"  X  4.17", which is incorrect.

Illustrator assumes that the user knows one of the basic rules of working with computer graphics: the ppi has relevance only when you are working with physical measurement units, like inches or mm. If you're working in pixels, this means you're creating graphics for screen, where a pixel will always be a pixel no matter what the ppi of your image is. A "300px X 300px, at 300ppi" graphic is a semantical nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2019 at 8:17 PM, Alfred said:

Without seeing the files, a difference in the document DPIs does seem the likeliest explanation.

6 hours ago, Fixx said:

If Designer has document set up in physical units (mm or inches), copying stuff from it should keep dimensions in such units. It is certainly a bug if it does not.

Agree with Fixx. vector objects are not related to pixels (dpi), so the size should not change when copying to a document with a different dpi.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tudor said:

Illustrator assumes that the user knows one of the basic rules of working with computer graphics: the ppi has relevance only when you are working with physical measurement units, like inches or mm. If you're working in pixels, this means you're creating graphics for screen, where a pixel will always be a pixel no matter what the ppi of your image is. A "300px X 300px, at 300ppi" graphic is a semantical nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense.  Your whole comment makes the assumption that anyone working with pixels will only present the image on a screen. Coreldraw and Illustrator are handling this in different ways.  According to you, Corel has no idea what they're doing, after 30 years of doing it.  But I'm sure you know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Kuttyjoe said:

According to you, Corel has no idea what they're doing, after 30 years of doing it.  But I'm sure you know better.

Nope. The software has to be flexible enough to let the user work as desired. The user has to be smart enough to understand the basic rules of working with units of measurement in graphic design, according to the final output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tudor said:

Nope. The software has to be flexible enough to let the user work as desired. The user has to be smart enough to understand the basic rules of working with units of measurement in graphic design, according to the final output.

Flexible enough to let the user work as desired?  Sounds great.  In Coreldraw, You can create a document which is 300px x 300px, which is also exactly 1inch if I change the measurements to inches.  If I press print, I get a 1 inch image.  I can also make it any other physical size directly in Coreldraw while still being 300px. 

In Illustrator, this same 300px document is about 4 inches. Nothing you can do can make it 1inch or any other size except changing changing the pixel size.  If you press print, you get a 4 inch document.  If you export it to a jpeg, you get a 4 inch document.  If you open it in Photoshop, it's 4 inches. 

Your problem is the same as most.  You're happily making assumptions about things that you don't know.  Here you continue making dumb assumptions about the final output.  The final output may be multiple destinations.  Coreldraw seems to be accommodating this.  Adobe Illustrator seems to not be accommodating this.  Of course, I can resolve this issue, once I get into Photoshop, but not within Illustrator and that's the point.  Please respond after you've tried it for yourself.  The guessing and assuming is not useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, it's not the fault of the software if you like to mix print and screen measurement units like they're the same thing. They are not.

29 minutes ago, Kuttyjoe said:

In Illustrator, this same 300px document is about 4 inches.

4.1666 inches, more precisely, which is 300px divided by 72 ppi. The default ppi value of screens since the beginning of time.

38 minutes ago, Kuttyjoe said:

Nothing you can do can make it 1inch or any other size except changing changing the pixel size.

Really? Change units to inches and resize the artboard to 1"x1". Export it at 300 ppi and you'll get your 300px file if so you wish.

43 minutes ago, Kuttyjoe said:

Here you continue making dumb assumptions about the final output.  The final output may be multiple destinations.  Coreldraw seems to be accommodating this.  Adobe Illustrator seems to not be accommodating this.

 

I've no idea how CorelDraw works because I stopped using it a long time ago. Illustrator doesn't make assumptions or decisions for you. It is made for people who know what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
52 minutes ago, Tazintosh said:

What's the situation here?

Same as always 😞

 

  • "The user interface is supposed to work for me - I am not supposed to work for the user interface."
  • Computer-, operating system- and software agnostic; I am a result oriented professional. Look for a fanboy somewhere else.
  • “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” ― Confucius
  • Not an Affinity user og forum user anymore. The software continued to disappoint and not deliver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2020 at 7:00 AM, Tazintosh said:

Hi folks,

Call it bug, issues, or expected behaviour, the fact is this is now more than a year and this wrong behaviour,  acknowledged by Affinity is still not "enhanced". (I'll say "fixed" if some don't mind).
What's the situation here?

The real mistake here is that you basically experimented with a new, cheaper tool for a mission where success was critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.