Jump to content
Dave Vector

Affinity Designer 1.8 New features list?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, nezumi said:

Listen sweetheart, your new girlfriend is not your ex, ok? It will never be the same. I know you miss Jenny. Maybe you should go back to her? Yeah, she was with you just for your money, but if you are happy with that... Maybe you should never try to have a new girlfriend? Because telling Lucy constantly about how good you had it with Jenny will not make things any better...

:4_joy::4_joy::4_joy::4_joy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nezumi said:

Listen sweetheart, your new girlfriend is not your ex, ok? It will never be the same. I know you miss Jenny. Maybe you should go back to her? Yeah, she was with you just for your money, but if you are happy with that... Maybe you should never try to have a new girlfriend? Because telling Lucy constantly about how good you had it with Jenny will not make things any better...

Nailed. It.

Best regards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nezumi said:

So I just renamed PDF extension to AI and resent the same file (yup, it does work).

While I understand and mostly agree with the gist of your post, some caution is called for in perpetuating misconceptions—especially confusing to newcomers—by over-simplification and over-generalization.

A PDF exported from some other program is not the same thing as a native Illustrator file.

Illustrator can "open" a PDF because when it comes down to it, PDF started as a subset of PostScript and Illustrator is a full-blown PostScript interpreter. Illustrator can "open" a PDF in the same sense that Illustrator can "open" a PostScript file.

Think of a PDF as a print stream "captured" on its way toward the printer. Native constructs of whatever program created it have been deconstructed to simpler, more basic objects that  the PostScript interpreter in an output device needs to understand in order to render it. PDF is not really meant for full "native" editing. (Some features, like form fields, are obvious exceptions.)

A few years back, the much ballyhooed proclamation from Adobe was "Illustrator's native format is now PDF!" That is mostly marketing smoke-and-mirrors. What it really means is that the PDF format allows for inclusion of a "cordoned off" section (kind of like a commented-out line in a program) into which the program exporting the PDF can write a complete copy of its own fully native data, so that that content is recognized by the program that exported it, but is ignored by other programs.

And that's what Illustrator does with PDF. When you Save a PDF from Illustrator, you have an option to also include in the PDF a fully native copy of the document with all its actually native Illustrator constructs. Predictably, that makes the PDF file size much larger. But if you don't turn on that option, Illustrator saves just the functionally "dumbed down" (deconstructed) PDF content.

Inversely, when you Save a .AI file from Illustrator, you have an option to also include in it a PDF version of the content. So some programs that can't import actual Illustrator native constructs can import the PDF content. That's not the same thing as actually having an Illustrator import filter, like say Corel DRAW, that actually tries to interpret and convert native Illustrator constructs (blends and grads, for example) into its corresponding editable constructs.

(Many Adobe users are blissfully unaware that even its own Adobe InDesign page-layout application (at least as of version CS6) cannot really import an Adobe Illustrator file; at least not in the assumed common-sense sense. InDesign can only import the PDF version of the content in an .ai file if it's there. If you don't believe that, try it: Save an Illustrator file from Illustrator, but turn off the default (what should be called) "Include PDF version" option in the Save dialog. Then launch InDesign and try to import it.)

As I understand it, since PDF is now an "open" format, any software company that wants to can take advantage of that functionality. For example, there is nothing preventing Corel from burying its native DRAW document in a PDF that it exports, and any application other than DRAW would just ignore that content. It's much the same as when Macromedia Fireworks treated PNG as its "native" format. PNG format similarly supports a "commented out" area in which Fireworks copies its actually native content. A Fireworks document may contain vector-based artwork, live text, etc. If some other application opens a PNG file created by Fireworks, that application only sees a raster image. If Fireworks re-opens the same PNG, it sees and opens its native and fully editable content (if it's still there).

So yeah, you may get away with just changing the ".pdf" extension of a PDF exported by some program other than Illustrator to ".ai" and the recipient will be able to open it with Illustrator. But that is not the same thing as exporting an .ai file from a program that has an Illustrator export filter. Illustrator can open it simply because it recognizes PDF content. Unless the file content is quite simple, it will very likely not be nearly as natively editable as the recipient expects.

One should not rely on that practice to fool someone (especially a customer) into thinking they are actually receiving a native Illustrator file containing fully editable Illustrator-native constructs, just as if it had been created in Illustrator.

I'm not saying any of this to insist that Affinity needs a dedicated Illustrator export filter. Illustrator's too-long stranglehold exists not because it's "best" but just because that's what most people have used for too long. That's the way the world works. But strangleholds never become broken until they are resisted, and that's the way the world works, too.

I will use Affinity for its own merits, just as I do Draw or Canvas or anything else; not as "poor man's Illustrator." Unrealistic? Nope. That was exactly my stance throughout the whole history of FreeHand. If a printing house wanted to be awarded my client's projects, they had to support the application formats in which they were provided. It was always stipulated that any necessary edits would be performed by me.

PDF is the "great liberator" of Captive Creatives, that finally provided us more freedom to use programs we prefer. No longer does one have to use Adobe products. And we should use PDF as such, not continue to cower in the face of the monolith, just because it's still conventional-wisdom to many.

JET
 

Share this post


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

PDF is the "great liberator" of Captive Creatives, that finally provided us more freedom to use programs we prefer.

Though, as you noted, it doesn't convey all the native information, but is a "dumbed down" version intended simply to be enough to print the document.

That's why users are pleased that Publisher is gaining the ability to import IDML documents from InDesign, rather than only being able to import/open a PDF document.

Share this post


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

That's why users are pleased that Publisher is gaining the ability to import IDML documents from InDesign, rather than only being able to import/open a PDF document. 

That's also why I flatly refuse to rent business-critical graphics software, despite the "oh, well, it's the modern way" rationale of those who begrudgingly succumb to such marketing machinations. The InD problem is a case-in-point.

As soon as Adobe announced its take-it-or-leave-it Captive Customers licensing, I stopped updating my theretofore faithfully-renewed Master Collection license and started deliberately letting my use of Adobe applications wither on the vine. In other words, I started doing with Adobe apps exactly what Adobe effectively forced longtime FreeHand users to do with their current and legacy files by acquiring FreeHand and then simply discontinuing it.

So while the IDML option is no doubt a godsend to some hoping to escape Adobe's stranglehold, it's a non-issue to me because I've never painted myself into the corner of having my own working files held hostage by a subscription license scheme, and never will.

To me, the "current version" of InDesign is still CS6. Like the rest of the Master Collection apps, it's dying a slow death and I'm not using it to create any new projects with a projected long life.

JET

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nose looks like it is the actual face. Now it cannot be unseen. :6_smile:

I have a question about the Edit All Layers feature, though. Would it be possible to have it only activated for individual layers and groups so you can decide which objects you want to keep inside the artboards and what to keep outside? Think that would be a nice quality of life feature. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MattP said:

@JGD - is this the unicorn layer functionality you are looking for?

UnicornLayers.mov

Matt,

Unless I missed it, that video doesn't show an instance of an object being dragged entirely onto the pasteboard (not intersecting any Artboard). Does it disappear if you do that?

Corrections welcome, but as best I've been able to discern, the confusing "universal layer" thing repeatedly mentioned in these threads is just a term coined by a user trying to communicate that in most graphics programs involving artboards (e.g., Illustrator) or pages (e.g., FreeHand) or even page spreads (e.g., InDesign), the artboard or page is effectively just treated as a rectangular region within its surrounding "pasteboard." (The near ubiquitous metaphor of page-layout being that of a physical paste-up table). So simply moving objects X or Y, whether intersecting pages or not, does not affect their position in the overall Z-order object stack of the document.

Affinity Designer's interface makes it feel like an Artboard is just a glorified clipping path. One expects moving an object out of one clipping path into another to change its Z position, since clipping path contents are always a range of objects contiguous in the stacking order. But one does not expect that to occur merely by moving an object onto, off of, or between pages.

If I'm on target, I agree with that complaint. Affinity's behavior is very different from expected in this regard, and I see no advantage to it (but am willing to listen if there is one).

JET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to artboards being ‘glorified clipping paths’ I’d argue that they are less like ‘glorified clipping paths’ than Illustrators artboards are like ‘glorified rectangles’ - our artboards are containers, as are XD’s artboards, even as are Photoshop’s artboards. We have pages in Publisher for when you’re trying to achieve things which would be more appropriately constructed that way.. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I’m trying to say is that with the functionality shown in that video, I don’t know what there is missing that you can’t achieve - and if there’s something that’s still not possible then you’re trying to achieve a page layout task which is better performed in Publisher, at least I think that’s the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 10:08 AM, nezumi said:

Looking for workaround is completely out of question.

Serif is markering Affinity Designer as "professional graphic design software for desktop and ipad" and it would be fair to expect people with professional needs and a professional workflow to expect something real and concrete from that sentence. Many workarounds are for amateurs and hobbyists and for struggling through temporary incidents here and now. You bill clients for time used more than anything. How much you can deliver depends on how easy and fast you can archive certain effects. This is not exactly groundbreaking news, so I expect the majority in here are hobbyists and users with simple use cases.

An effective workflow is key and pointless redundant work is costly and not creative in any way. Designer improves my workflow?

Quote

Affinity Designer has truly changed the world of graphic design. Five years of intensive refinement since launch have been dedicated to our unwavering vision of a powerful, super-smooth app which improves your workflow and allows your creativity to shine.

I would have to disagree. Designer is not quite there yet. It is a pleasure to work with when doing hobby stuff but the second you (or a client) pour real ambitions into your work it is all about manual work, workarounds and not much support from fx perspective distortion. That alone effectively rules out re-use of some complex layers/groups elsewhere in a drawing. BOOM! Business case falls to the ground, dead. Misplaced over simplistic, silly girlfriend analogies better suited for a much younger audience doesn't change that or the world.

The Affinity Suite is no longer a new product or technology and the honeymoon is over. More is expected and with good right. Let costumers air their concerns, criticism and needs in here without the constant whining from loyal users. Affinity is a commercial supposedly professional suite of programs with a company run forum for feedback from customers. Let costumers talk and let Serif answer professionally.

In fact the waves of emotional answers from hobbyists in here will probably not convince any professional potential customer that the vivid marketing statements are true.

ANYWAY - the current build of 1.8 is just the first build of the new 1.8 code branch surprisingly early. There is nothing new and shining in it yet. It may be a good time for a service release with stabilizing bug fixes, optimizations and fx the long awaited improved expand stroke. But it will be a(nother) momentum killer for Designer if more advanced professional features are scheduled for 2.0 and then available in perhaps 3 years from now. Or longer.

Designer is more than suitable for a segment of creatives - users of the wonderful brushes and textures from Frankentoon, DAUB and Stuart. Has been for years. Other segments are still waiting for small or bigger features for their use cases though. Plenty of evidence for that in this very forum. I don't think you are doing Serif any kind of favor telling these customers or potential customers that they don't need features they damn well know they need. Alternatives are out there.

Share this post


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

There is nothing new and shining in it yet.

Maybe not shiny, but the newly implemented high precision tablet input feature which now supports Windows Ink properly is a pretty big deal for tablet users. It will help solve arguably one of the worst issues plaguing Affinity which is the jagged lines issue when drawing anything. Personally, I have been waiting for this feature for about 2-3 years, so I am already pretty happy with 1.8 so far. :6_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

Maybe not shiny, but the newly implemented high precision tablet input feature which now supports Windows Ink properly is a pretty big deal for tablet users. It will help solve arguably one of the worst issues plaguing Affinity which is the jagged lines issue when drawing anything. Personally, I have been waiting for this feature for about 2-3 years, so I am already pretty happy with 1.8 so far. :6_smile:

Good news indeed but what I meant was that the current build of 1.8 is hardly a real beta. Yet. Perhaps released this early to bring some joy to high precision tablet users like you, which is good. :) Probably not released as a minor update because of 1.8 code dependencies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jowday said:

and it would be fair to expect people with professional needs and a professional workflow to expect something real and concrete from that sentence. Many workarounds are for amateurs and hobbyists and for struggling through temporary incidents here and now.

I am professional user. Of course if making a living doing visual art of different kinds for the last 23 years qualifies...
Workarounds are for amateurs and hobbyists? I always thoughts these are for people who want the job done. Now "professional" is waiting till company will sort out software before he can get project done..? Well I am not a pro according to that definition...
 

4 hours ago, Jowday said:

You bill clients for time used more than anything.

Not at all. I am quoting for the project. Working for hours is the dumbest way of quoting your work. The better you are, the quicker you make a project - the less you earn. Fantastic... I would quote for hour if I was working on assembly line in factory or standing somewhere as a guard. DEFINITELY not as an artist.

4 hours ago, Jowday said:

This is not exactly groundbreaking news, so I expect the majority in here are hobbyists and users with simple use cases.

Yeah, you are pro, your time is valuable, you want to make things fast and... you are charging clients per hour? That makes lot of sense.
For clients.
Maybe you should re-think your strategy to make it work for you too.

4 hours ago, Jowday said:

An effective workflow is key and pointless redundant work is costly and not creative in any way. Designer improves my workflow?

It sure works for me.
I really think there are two possible scenarios when it comes to people who cant use Affinity in their professional work. First one - people do not commit to switch. They are still doing work on PS/AI, turn on Affinity occasionally,  trying few things and quickly going back to PS/AI because thats what they know. They never change their workflow, they will always be slaves to one software they know. You cant learn how to drive bicycle if you afraid of lifting legs off the ground. You need to commit - make few full projects NO MATTER WHAT, entirely on Affinity. You will never learn the new software if you just jump back to the old one at slightest problem. I started my switch to Affinity by deleting AI and PS. Then I had no choice - I had to learn. And dont give me that "oh oh, my time is so precious" excuse. Mine too - I got family to feed, I have to work every day. But I did it, so I know its not as bad.
And second group - people who for whatever reason/personal preference just dont like Affinity software. They dont like shortcuts, philosophy, UI, whatever. They expect Affinity to change to accommodate them. Complaining about everything that is not exactly like THEY want it. Because they saw something in Adobe, Corel, Xara.... So they dont want new software - they want stuff to work just like they saw it somewhere or imagined it.
Neither of that groups will be ever satisfied or make a switch to Affinity. You cant make the switch if you are constantly using crouches of the old software you were using and you cant make the switch if you just dislike software.

I see the same when it comes to my main software - ZBrush. Some people just complain about UI FOR YEARS. They are constantly waiting for their imaginary change, a change that is not coming. They refuse to learn it as it is, but are activating their complains every new version. "UI is horrible! Still not updated!".
Pointless.
Here I see the same - I made a switch to Affinity as soon as it was available for Windows. Making happily all the work I did before with minor adjustments. Something that was a workaround at first became part of the workflow.
And through this last three years I keep on seeing that very same complaining posts popping up every now and then. And they will keep on popping up. Because Affinity will never become carbon copy of PS/AI.
Thankfully.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MattP said:

@JGD - is this the unicorn layer functionality you are looking for?

UnicornLayers.mov

Hmmm!!  @MattP. Did you just leak some info in the video?  I can see "Designer MacOS Beta" in the background or am I seeing stars? ;)  Is there re-branding or perhaps Designer based on MacOS Catalyst?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nezumi said:

I am professional user. Of course if making a living doing visual art of different kinds for the last 23 years qualifies...
Workarounds are for amateurs and hobbyists? I always thoughts these are for people who want the job done. Now "professional" is waiting till company will sort out software before he can get project done..? Well I am not a pro according to that definition...
 

Not at all. I am quoting for the project. Working for hours is the dumbest way of quoting your work. The better you are, the quicker you make a project - the less you earn. Fantastic... I would quote for hour if I was working on assembly line in factory or standing somewhere as a guard. DEFINITELY not as an artist.

Yeah, you are pro, your time is valuable, you want to make things fast and... you are charging clients per hour? That makes lot of sense.
For clients.
Maybe you should re-think your strategy to make it work for you too.

It sure works for me.
I really think there are two possible scenarios when it comes to people who cant use Affinity in their professional work. First one - people do not commit to switch. They are still doing work on PS/AI, turn on Affinity occasionally,  trying few things and quickly going back to PS/AI because thats what they know. They never change their workflow, they will always be slaves to one software they know. You cant learn how to drive bicycle if you afraid of lifting legs off the ground. You need to commit - make few full projects NO MATTER WHAT, entirely on Affinity. You will never learn the new software if you just jump back to the old one at slightest problem. I started my switch to Affinity by deleting AI and PS. Then I had no choice - I had to learn. And dont give me that "oh oh, my time is so precious" excuse. Mine too - I got family to feed, I have to work every day. But I did it, so I know its not as bad.
And second group - people who for whatever reason/personal preference just dont like Affinity software. They dont like shortcuts, philosophy, UI, whatever. They expect Affinity to change to accommodate them. Complaining about everything that is not exactly like THEY want it. Because they saw something in Adobe, Corel, Xara.... So they dont want new software - they want stuff to work just like they saw it somewhere or imagined it.
Neither of that groups will be ever satisfied or make a switch to Affinity. You cant make the switch if you are constantly using crouches of the old software you were using and you cant make the switch if you just dislike software.

I see the same when it comes to my main software - ZBrush. Some people just complain about UI FOR YEARS. They are constantly waiting for their imaginary change, a change that is not coming. They refuse to learn it as it is, but are activating their complains every new version. "UI is horrible! Still not updated!".
Pointless.
Here I see the same - I made a switch to Affinity as soon as it was available for Windows. Making happily all the work I did before with minor adjustments. Something that was a workaround at first became part of the workflow.
And through this last three years I keep on seeing that very same complaining posts popping up every now and then. And they will keep on popping up. Because Affinity will never become carbon copy of PS/AI.
Thankfully.
 

You never made an estimate? Time never was a factor? 20 or 30 hours did not matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are fortunate enough to have more than enough work then part of the proces is to fit a job in between others. This depends on tools that does not involve time consuming work arounds. And a slow tool will result in lost opportunities.

How we charge costumers is another discussion entirely. 

A slow manual workflow is simply a no go in my situation. And costly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I didn't understand you, but to me "You bill clients for time used more than anything" reads exactly as if time is how you charge your clients.

Now, if the tool is what defines your business, then yeah, it makes all of the sense of the world to have "the tool". For others, that's not the case.

Best regards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what Jowday is saying. No matter how a job is estimated/quoted, it is based on hours. And it is our job to beat those hours in order to maximize profits.

It's not really any different to a Chilton's Time Manuel that mechanics use/used. Each aspect of repairing your vehicle is based upon time and the mechanic (and the shop) maximized their profits by beating those times. And, to finish the analogy, the better, the more complete their tool sets, the odds were better that they did so.

The same goes for the "little" jobs that get squeezed in. And the jobs for "the little guy." While I may lessen my guestimate due to given circumstances for these jobs, that doesn't mean it's not based on hours or some assigned value. It is.

Both circumstance/job type is always based on time and rate even when it is a sliding rate. And no matter what a particular job is valued at, at the end of the year it absolutely matters what tools I used to maximize profit throughout that year. It always makes a difference to my income.

Work-arounds are not "different ways of doing something." Work-arounds are methods used to achieve a certain result when the software being used cannot due something, either due to a missing function and/or a bug. This chews through time making a job less profitable and at the end of the year affects how much I make.

As regards utilizing a different software that has a different work-flow but otherwise achieves the same or similar result? Of course that too uses up time and affects the year end's bottom line. That's a given. That's a learning curve "fee" we all pay. Add in work-arounds as defined above and it is a costly choice to change software. I personally accept the former cost (learning curve) but do not accept the latter (work-arounds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jowday said:

Serif is markering Affinity Designer as "professional graphic design software for desktop and ipad" and it would be fair to expect people with professional needs and a professional workflow to expect something real and concrete from that sentence. Many workarounds are for amateurs and hobbyists and for struggling through temporary incidents here and now. You bill clients for time used more than anything. How much you can deliver depends on how easy and fast you can archive certain effects. This is not exactly groundbreaking news, so I expect the majority in here are hobbyists and users with simple use cases.

An effective workflow is key and pointless redundant work is costly and not creative in any way. Designer improves my workflow?

I would have to disagree. Designer is not quite there yet. It is a pleasure to work with when doing hobby stuff but the second you (or a client) pour real ambitions into your work it is all about manual work, workarounds and not much support from fx perspective distortion. That alone effectively rules out re-use of some complex layers/groups elsewhere in a drawing. BOOM! Business case falls to the ground, dead. Misplaced over simplistic, silly girlfriend analogies better suited for a much younger audience doesn't change that or the world.

The Affinity Suite is no longer a new product or technology and the honeymoon is over. More is expected and with good right. Let costumers air their concerns, criticism and needs in here without the constant whining from loyal users. Affinity is a commercial supposedly professional suite of programs with a company run forum for feedback from customers. Let costumers talk and let Serif answer professionally.

In fact the waves of emotional answers from hobbyists in here will probably not convince any professional potential customer that the vivid marketing statements are true.

ANYWAY - the current build of 1.8 is just the first build of the new 1.8 code branch surprisingly early. There is nothing new and shining in it yet. It may be a good time for a service release with stabilizing bug fixes, optimizations and fx the long awaited improved expand stroke. But it will be a(nother) momentum killer for Designer if more advanced professional features are scheduled for 2.0 and then available in perhaps 3 years from now. Or longer.

Designer is more than suitable for a segment of creatives - users of the wonderful brushes and textures from Frankentoon, DAUB and Stuart. Has been for years. Other segments are still waiting for small or bigger features for their use cases though. Plenty of evidence for that in this very forum. I don't think you are doing Serif any kind of favor telling these customers or potential customers that they don't need features they damn well know they need. Alternatives are out there.

How come you have the power and strength to come here on weekly basis and bla bla bla Affinity sucks for real Pros, it is just hobbyists using Affinity... I wish we could get away from you forever, because you NEVER say anything other that you said hundreds of time; Affinity sucks...

Take your other Pro software, work with them and leave us hobbyists alone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. 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.