Jump to content

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Literally "under" (physically and nested), on Windows:

OK, I do see the same thing on my Mac. However, if Force Pixel Alignment is disabled there, Move by Whole Pixels is greyed out, just like with the toolbar buttons. So it is still true that FPA must be enabled for MBWP to be enabled, making it the same kind of additional constraint as is "Include spread mid points" for "Snap to spread" and "Include margin mid points" for "Snap to margin."

Surely that is enough to indicate it is not a 'one or the other' option but one option with an optional 'sub-option'?


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, R C-R said:

OK, I do see the same thing on my Mac. However, if Force Pixel Alignment is disabled there, Move by Whole Pixels is greyed out, just like with the toolbar buttons. So it is still true that FPA must be enabled for MBWP to be enabled, making it the same kind of additional constraint as is "Include spread mid points" for "Snap to spread" and "Include margin mid points" for "Snap to margin."

Surely that is enough to indicate it is not a 'one or the other' option but one option with an optional 'sub-option'?

Right. An option with a sub-option.


-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 1909 (183623.476), 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00Gz, GeForce GTX 970
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.502 Beta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don’t think I’ve managed to get my point across adequately so I’ll try a slightly different tack.
Please answer this question: “What do you expect the Force Pixel Alignment function to do?”
Please don’t quote the Help (I can read it for myself) but say what you think it should do from what it’s called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GarryP said:

I still don’t think I’ve managed to get my point across adequately so I’ll try a slightly different tack.
Please answer this question: “What do you expect the Force Pixel Alignment function to do?”
Please don’t quote the Help (I can read it for myself) but say what you think it should do from what it’s called.

IMHO the force pixel alignment should force any creation, movement or adjustment to snap to the nearest pixel.

However, move by whole pixels is obviously not compatible with that. It's a bit odd and I think the two should actually be completely separate from each other so you can have one or the other turned on, not one as a sub option of the other.

If you stop and think about it, the Move by whole pixels is actually kind of redundant if you have an option that snaps everything to the nearest pixel anyway. But I guess the thinking is that if you have a shape where not every node is sat on a pixel division and you want to move the shape, you don't want every node on the shape to snap to a pixel division because that would change the shape, so I think this is where the move by whole pixels comes into play? Having said that, that doesn't appear to happen anyway, so the move by whole pixels does seem a bit redundant. It's really handy though if you don't want to snap to pixels and want to move something by whole pixels <stares into space and tries to picture situation that requires this>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...actually I think I just worked out what the MBWP is for - if you are creating small sprites/icons and find a nice alignment of pixels using a vector that is sat off of the pixel grid, it means you can move it around without losing that pixel setup (ie. keeping the anti-aliasing the same). That might actually be important in certain situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, GarryP said:

I still don’t think I’ve managed to get my point across adequately so I’ll try a slightly different tack.
Please answer this question: “What do you expect the Force Pixel Alignment function to do?”
Please don’t quote the Help (I can read it for myself) but say what you think it should do from what it’s called.

If enabled, I expect it to constrain moving dragged items based on the pixel spacing of the document. But I also understand that there is a difference between constraining movement to whole pixel values & by whole pixel values, & that "Force Pixel Alignment" applies to both. Thus the additional option to choose between them.


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dazzler: I think you’re saying what Alfred and myself (and others) have been saying.
Forcing pixel alignments is an important feature, and so is moving by whole pixels.
However, they can be mutually exclusive and so MBWP should not be a “sub-option”/”child-option”/”extension”/”(whatever)” of FPA.
If FPA is ON then MBWP is redundant as you are already snapping to whole pixels. IF MBWP is ON then sub-pixels are allowed and so FPA is overridden. They can’t both be active and working at the same time (unless sub-pixels are not involved and then it’s just as if FPA is working by itself anyway). I’ve yet to hear any argument that refutes that.

R C-R: Indeed, snapping to the pixels of a document is one thing and moving by whole pixels is another but we can’t currently have MBWP unless FPA is also switched on. Since MBWP overrides FPA (I can supply a video if necessary) they should be separate mutually-exclusive options rather than one only being available when the other is on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case there’s still any doubt, I’ve created a short video where the grid is set to one pixel.
First, FPA and MBWP are switched off – no surprises there.
Next, FPA is switched on – no surprises there either, the layer is snapping to the grid/pixels.
Next, both switched off again – fair enough.
Next, both FPA and MBWP are switched on, and here’s my issue: The pixels are not being aligned to even though I have Force Pixel Alignment switched ON. It’s not forcing pixel alignment so why is it still active? It’s not doing what it’s supposed to do because MBWP is overriding it. MBWP is not a sub-option (or whatever) of FPA, it’s an override. They both do different things. I really can’t explain this any better.

FPA-MBWP.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GarryP said:

R C-R: Indeed, snapping to the pixels of a document is one thing and moving by whole pixels is another but we can’t currently have MBWP unless FPA is also switched on. Since MBWP overrides FPA (I can supply a video if necessary) they should be separate mutually-exclusive options rather than one only being available when the other is on.

MBWP does not "override" FPA. It is simply one of two ways to force the alignment, which is why you cannot enable MBWP unless FPA is enabled. No FPA, no forced alignment of any kind. FPA enabled, you have a choice of one of two kinds of forced alignments. It is that simple.


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GarryP said:

Next, both FPA and MBWP are switched on, and here’s my issue: The pixels are not being aligned to even though I have Force Pixel Alignment switched ON. It’s not forcing pixel alignment so why is it still active?

When both are enabled the object is forced to move by whole pixel values rather than to whole pixel values. MBWP does not exclude forced alignment; it is simply one of two available types of forced alignment.


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Force Pixel Alignment is supposed to force layers to be aligned with the pixels in the document, force, not suggest, or cajole, or go near, but FORCE. MBWP does not allow for this unless the layer is already aligned to the pixels. Therefore, when MBWP is ON and the pixels are not already aligned, FPA cannot do what it is supposed to do. In these cases it is not forcing anything and therefore it shouldn’t be ON. MBWP is OVERRIDING what FPA does as it is allowing something that FPA should not be allowing. It should be a logical OR: none on, one on, or the other on, but not both on at the same time. You can’t both force pixel alignment and also allow non-pixel-alignment at the same time. That simply doesn’t make sense. Either force pixel alignment or not, one or the other, it can’t be both at the same time. The video clearly shows that with both FPA and MBWP on at the same time the layer is not being forced to align with the pixels, which goes against what “force pixel alignment” says should be happening.

Oh, to heck with this, I give up.
Anyone else want to take over? This is tiring me out and I can’t be bothered to argue about it any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, GarryP said:

Force Pixel Alignment is supposed to force layers to be aligned with the pixels in the document, force, not suggest, or cajole, or go near, but FORCE. MBWP does not allow for this unless the layer is already aligned to the pixels. Therefore, when MBWP is ON and the pixels are not already aligned, FPA cannot do what it is supposed to do.

Does it help to consider that if you start off with Force Pixel Alignment on, then everything will be properly located on integral pixel coordinates and will have integral pixel dimensions. Except for those objects where you have chosen to override FPA by using the Alt key while dragging, or by using the Transform panel. For those objects, you have chosen specifically to override FPA, and if you also enable Move By Whole Pixels, then Affinity will honor your choice and ensure that your non-integer positioning is maintained.

Much of the consternation about how alignment works comes, from what I've seen, from users who start their designs with FPA turned off, and then end up with a mess of objects that are not properly placed or sized to integer pixel values. But if you start with FPA turned on, then you're in good shape and stay that way unless you choose to override FPA. (Or, I suppose, unless you don't realize that using Alt will override it, and use Alt when you shouldn't.)


-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 1909 (183623.476), 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00Gz, GeForce GTX 970
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.502 Beta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see what you mean but it doesn’t really help.
I expect a function that says it will “force” a situation to actually “force” things every time, no matter what, with no exceptions, under all conditions.
If it says force, that’s what I expect it to do, always. Not send a polite letter asking if it might be possible, not pretend it might be happening, but actually force, make it done with no excuses. Otherwise, why does it have the word “Force” in the name?
I can’t think of a good analogy that doesn’t sound trite or will not have people going off on a tangent arguing about whether it’s an accurate analogy or not so I’ll leave it.
I’ve gone off this area of discussion now. To me it’s as clear as day but I haven’t been able to convince otherwise so there’s no real point in continuing. Each to their own and onwards we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GarryP said:

Force Pixel Alignment is supposed to force layers to be aligned with the pixels in the document, force, not suggest, or cajole, or go near, but FORCE.

FPA is supposed to force one of two alignment options, which is what it does. Nothing in the FPA name suggests that the function must force everything to whole pixel values -- that is a mistaken assumption. The word "Force" is in the name because FPA both with & without the MBWP option forces alignment, just to two different things.

Again, that is why FPA must be enabled for the MBWP option to work. 


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

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.