Jump to content
Dave Vector

Affinity Designer 1.8 New features list?

Recommended Posts

On 12/7/2019 at 5:15 PM, Mithferion said:

Adobe Illustrator is whatever you might describe, except for user-friendly. It's a piece of Software with many great Tools but to this day it's something I don't enjoy using. On the other hand, even when you consider its shortcomings, Affinity Designer is way more user-frienly.

Now, there are some parts in Affinity Designer that can be improved, and what Matt has shown (something asked rightly by you) looks good to me and it's a welcome feature, but taking that example and speaking like that's the case for the overall experience on both Applications, I find it just not to be true.

Best regards!

Also, not what I said. Overall, AD is indeed more user-friendly. I did mention its intuitive tools, didn't I? As for Ai, I believe I mentioned it before but it does bear repeating: it has a steep learning curve and features some positively horrible vector editing tools.

So, it stands to reason that for a digital illustrator that wants to quickly plop down some artwork into a simple virtual canvas, AD is WAY friendlier.

But for someone who's more of a perfectionist (re-read my comments regarding artwork repositioning in more complex documents), the current document model may start to irk them a bit…

And, finally, for an information designer who may have to produce, say, an entire signage system…? Ehhhh, things start to get ugly and slow, real fast. As I've also demonstrated before here in the forums.

As you should know, when it comes to software usability and workflows, things are anything but obvious and linear. Once you get past that learning curve, economies of scale kick in, and I can assure you that whatever workarounds I'd have to come up with in AD would be way worse and time-wasting than having to deal with Ai's horrid tools every now and then. I know, because I tried them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 10:52 PM, haakoo said:

Didn't we all?

 

Again, don't we all?


The passion the so called amateurs have is as much as the so called pro's.
The goal is the same just the constant complaining is the problem.
What would new users think if they come here for answers?
They only see negative posts which make them reconsider if this is the right product,it could mean they will leave,don't buy the products,no future funds,no development.
So maybe put this thread to sleep and let you half empty glass members take a look at yourselves in what it is that you are really doing here.
Not only alienating current users whom paid as much as you ,the complainers.
But also the future users that will pay for your precious to die for features.

Good night, sleep tight,

BOOO wake up people!

I'm not sure I fully agree with your assessment. They will actually see a lively back-and-forth between devs and users. Sure, it may not always be perfect, but it's leagues ahead of what happens at the competition's user forums (and here, I'll single out Adobe by name: I will never, *ever* forget that infamous Photoshop gradient thread).

We are discussing very precise factors here, and users who don't feel affected by them will either ignore the discussion altogether, or realise those issues aren't that big of a deal anyway. Also, Affinity apps are so affordable that taking the plunge isn't that big of a risk, IMHO. Even if you never pick them up again, they cost as much as a few months of a CC subscription, and you can absolutely recoup the initial investment in no time.

The main reasons I (and others?) am so “passionate” about the Affinity suite are, as stated earlier, because I do wish to switch to a more affordable alternative, but also because I'm trying to recoup the time investment and regain some of the credibility lost for having peddled it to no end at the very beginning of the public beta phase. And the main reason I'm not doing so anymore, nor investing in crazy workarounds without any guarantee that they will become obsolete ASAP, is the fact that I know of the sunken cost fallacy. Nuh-uh, I'm not getting caught in that rabbit hole.

Once I realised AD did not work for me and my students in its current state I pulled out of my self-appointed duties as a full-blown tester and evangeliser, and focused on its irreconcilable structural shortcomings instead. For all the people here thinking that I'm too emotional, or passionate or whatever, I would kindly ask you to take a moment to appreciate how very rational, logical and laser-focused those decisions actually were.

As for Serif, a company constantly propped up by none other than Apple itself, I think you worry too much about its short-term future. Our comments about the long term are aimed mostly at Serif management itself, not other users – current and potential –, and I fully believe the latter realise that and are more than able to decide for themselves if Affinity is good enough for them in its current form. There is, IMHO, plenty of time to correct course here and there, and these latest posts are absolutely a step in the right direction. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick, I know we had our differences, but these two snippets right here warrant some kudos:

On 12/7/2019 at 6:31 PM, Patrick Connor said:

I think that there are forum regulars here for whom Affinity is 95% what they need, which is frustratingly close. [emphasis mine]

I now see that you totally get our sentiment. That about sums it up nicely.

On 12/7/2019 at 6:31 PM, Patrick Connor said:

If any more features are added we are more than likely to leave existing workflows available. So if Affinity works for you now, it most likely will work for you in the future too.

Also this. I've been mentioning it before as something I just assume it's going to happen, hard and ambitious as it may be to achieve (in fact, I think it's something akin to squaring the circle), but to see you actually commit to that is refreshing. Never in a million years did I wish for any of my suggestions to make Affinity apps harder to work with for those who already enjoy and are used to them, and I expected they would get that by default. I'm hoping that your statement clears that up a bit.

Anyhoo, I'm now heading back to my little SVG/variable font corner. ;)

Share this post


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

Patrick, I know we had our differences, but these two snippets right here warrant some kudos:

I now see that you totally get our sentiment. That about sums it up nicely.

Also this. I've been mentioning it before as something I just assume it's going to happen, hard and ambitious as it may be to achieve (in fact, I think it's something akin to squaring the circle), but to see you actually commit to that is refreshing. Never in a million years did I wish for any of my suggestions to make Affinity apps harder to work with for those who already enjoy and are used to them, and I expected they would get that by default. I'm hoping that your statement clears that up a bit.

Anyhoo, I'm now heading back to my little SVG/variable font corner. ;)

The problem with some users here is not that they wish better functionality or feature-richer Affinity apps in general, it’s the constantly complaining and threatening (just like JGD - his mantra: can’t recommend this to my students... bla bla bla...)...

 

Share this post


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

I'm not sure I fully agree with your assessment. They will actually see a lively back-and-forth between devs and users. Sure, it may not always be perfect, but it's leagues ahead of what happens at the competition's user forums (and here, I'll single out Adobe by name: I will never, *ever* forget that infamous Photoshop gradient thread).

We are discussing very precise factors here, and users who don't feel affected by them will either ignore the discussion altogether, or realise those issues aren't that big of a deal anyway. Also, Affinity apps are so affordable that taking the plunge isn't that big of a risk, IMHO. Even if you never pick them up again, they cost as much as a few months of a CC subscription, and you can absolutely recoup the initial investment in no time.

The main reasons I (and others?) am so “passionate” about the Affinity suite are, as stated earlier, because I do wish to switch to a more affordable alternative, but also because I'm trying to recoup the time investment and regain some of the credibility lost for having peddled it to no end at the very beginning of the public beta phase. And the main reason I'm not doing so anymore, nor investing in crazy workarounds without any guarantee that they will become obsolete ASAP, is the fact that I know of the sunken cost fallacy. Nuh-uh, I'm not getting caught in that rabbit hole.

Once I realised AD did not work for me and my students in its current state I pulled out of my self-appointed duties as a full-blown tester and evangeliser, and focused on its irreconcilable structural shortcomings instead. For all the people here thinking that I'm too emotional, or passionate or whatever, I would kindly ask you to take a moment to appreciate how very rational, logical and laser-focused those decisions actually were.

As for Serif, a company constantly propped up by none other than Apple itself, I think you worry too much about its short-term future. Our comments about the long term are aimed mostly at Serif management itself, not other users – current and potential –, and I fully believe the latter realise that and are more than able to decide for themselves if Affinity is good enough for them in its current form. There is, IMHO, plenty of time to correct course here and there, and these latest posts are absolutely a step in the right direction. ;)

Well, You still don't get it 
I'm not saying your suggestions are invalid heck most I would like to see myself but like stated before,you keep on hammering about it in very lengthy demanding posts.
That's the point some of us are making;

Stop this constant hurling of your opinion.
We and Serif probably too, got it the first time(if explained well)
In the end Serif is deciding if or when something is implemented or not,
Not you,not me
We simply can suggest something or point to some unheard or unseen feature that may better the software.
But again stop this waterfall of arguments why and in your opinion when and how it should be done.


 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win10(2004)Home / Photo / Designer / Publisher & latest (beta) versions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 10:06 AM, haakoo said:

Stop this constant hurling of your opinion.

I wanted to read something about the new features in version 1.8 (as the thread title says), but unfortunately I bump again to this monotonous promotion of their views, so I won't read anything :-( I don't have for it time or nerves, i'll wait for the official feature introduction.


Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.8.3.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 1909, Build 18363.720.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 12:15 PM, Mithferion said:

Adobe Illustrator is whatever you might describe, except for user-friendly. It's a piece of Software with many great Tools but to this day it's something I don't enjoy using. On the other hand, even when you consider its shortcomings, Affinity Designer is way more user-frienly.

Best regards!

It's not that simple.  User friendliness also depends on the individual user's experience, expectations, etc.  And every program has some areas where it does well and others that need work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kuttyjoe said:

It's not that simple.  User friendliness also depends on the individual user's experience, expectations, etc.  And every program has some areas where it does well and others that need work. 

Sure, but since Adobe want to sell their software line-up as an ecosystem to people with their business model, it's reasonable to criticize stuff in one software especially when you think one of their other softwares have done a better job with the user experience. While I think Adobe have got a bunch of decent software where they have done a lot to bridge the gap between different workflows, they haven't always done a good job at unifying the user experience when jumping between each software.

As a Photoshop user there are plenty of things that bug me when jumping from Photoshop to Illustrator.  What takes one context sensitive R click to open the layers menu to create a clipping mask in Photoshop, I have to instead open up a menu at the top of the screen to access that same feature. Sure, you can use shortcuts to speed up the process, but it's those inconsistencies that make the transition less intuitive. I really like how Photoshop handles layers, so when Illustrator doesn't take pointers from that I get pretty disappointed.

The reason I like Designer more than Illustrator despite the latter having more features is that it has more in common with Photo/Photoshop than it does with Illustrator, especially regarding layers. If I want to do a clipping mask, I just do the same action I do in Photo. Granted, not every action is translated over 100%, but it's something I appreciate nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

As a Photoshop user there are plenty of things that bug me when jumping from Photoshop to Illustrator.  What takes one context sensitive R click to open the layers menu to create a clipping mask in Photoshop, I have to instead open up a menu at the top of the screen to access that same feature. Sure, you can use shortcuts to speed up the process, but it's those inconsistencies that make the transition less intuitive. I really like how Photoshop handles layers, so when Illustrator doesn't take pointers from that I get pretty disappointed.

You’re saying that if two programs are made by the same company, then they should work exactly the same way, or one of them is unintuitive.  I can’t really understand that.  But that’s what I was saying before about user experiences and expectations.  My expectations and standards are much simpler.  If a program can achieve a task easy, or fast, then you won’t ever hear me say anything much about it. As it is, Photoshop and Illustrator are both great at masking, fast and easy.  If you’d not mentioned that they aren’t exactly the same, the idea would never have crossed my mind.  If one did it very well and the other did not, then I would notice that quickly, but that’s not the case at all.  So for me, that would be really nitpicking.  I can’t figure out how what you pointed out is harming me.  It’s not slowing me down.  It’s not preventing me from doing the work.  You say you’re getting pretty disappointed because, why?  You say that you could work faster by using keyboard shortcuts, but you don’t.  So, speed is not your goal.  Working more slowly is not the problem.  You’re not finding either software to be difficult to achieve a mask so that’s also not the problem.  So what exactly is the thing that’s making you disappointed?  Is it just the arbitrary notion of form, rather than focusing on function?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2019 at 6:13 PM, JGD said:

Also, not what I said. Overall, AD is indeed more user-friendly. I did mention its intuitive tools, didn't I? As for Ai, I believe I mentioned it before but it does bear repeating: it has a steep learning curve and features some positively horrible vector editing tools.

It's great that we agree on that. NOthing else to discuss on that matter, I think.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 6:13 PM, JGD said:

But for someone who's more of a perfectionist (re-read my comments regarding artwork repositioning in more complex documents), the current document model may start to irk them a bit…

And that's why I mentioned that you rightly asked for these changes. The great news: it's coming in the "near" future.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 6:13 PM, JGD said:

As you should know, when it comes to software usability and workflows, things are anything but obvious and linear. Once you get past that learning curve, economies of scale kick in, and I can assure you that whatever workarounds I'd have to come up with in AD would be way worse and time-wasting than having to deal with Ai's horrid tools every now and then. I know, because I tried them.

And I don't say anything to argue you on that, because we are different and we use the Software for different things.

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 ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 3:05 PM, MattP said:

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.. :/

From a user's conceptual perspective, Layers and Pages are fundamentally and purposefully distinct. Proper layers provide a document level organizational mechanism based on the users' working purposes that is independent of pages. That's why they exist. Moving objects onto, off of, or between pages has no business changing their position in the object stacking order of the whole document.

It's called a "Layers Palette" for a reason: From the beginning in the 80s, the Layers Palettes in object-based graphics programs did not even list objects. That unnecessary (and frankly, ill-conceived) notion came much later. The Layers Palette only listed Layers, because it was not just another method to merely "bracket" a range of objects on a particular page that are contiguous in the  Z-stacking order. There are already other means by which to do that. That's what groups and nested groups do. (Any kind of group, including special construct groups like clipping paths, blends, symbols, etc.)

Proper layers are not about that.

Example A. Suppose I'm working on a document which consists of a set of nine drawings on pages (Sheets) of varying sizes. I have a group consisting of a few lines and text objects called a Title Block. Each Sheet (page) has its own inset border (different size/shape for each page). Each sheet has its own reference grid with its own X and Y legend. I put all that stuff on the same single document-spanning Layer called "Sheet Frames."

I have another Layer named "Temp_Trace." Anytime I need to temporarily import a raster image (say a scan of a sketch) for tracing, I import it to the Temp-Trace layer. I create that Layer once. I toggle its visibility on or off with one click, regardless of what page I'm on. I can drag a sketch image on that Layer from page to page, without it jumping to somewhere else within the overall document's object stack.

Example B. Another project consists of press-sheets for a product identity project. A 19" x 22"  layout (page) contains  a ganged-up set of labels of various sizes for several different sizes of jars. A letter-size layout contains a gang of business cards for six different employees. Another layout contains both sides of a 9" x 12" (trim) trifold product brochure arranged for work-and-turn printing (i.e., one set of press plates, minimized pre-press setup and finishing chores).

I put trim marks, fold marks, color bars and other production references on all of those sheets and I want them all to reside on a single document-wide layer called "Printer Marks." Two of the sheets involve die cuts. I want all of those paths on a single document-wide layer called "Die Cuts."

I put foil stamps, embosses, varnishes, and sometimes spot ink objects on document-level Layers.

When printing or exporting, I can toggle on or off those auxiliary layers, as needed, document-wide. When finished with a temporary-purpose layer, I can delete it, document-wide. I can turn off "technical" layers across all pages in the document and then export all pages as approval comps.

Example C. Another project consists of a set of 50 wiring schematics of various page-sizes for a vehicle. The set is to be delivered to plants in the US and Mexico. All the myriad circuit labels reside on two whole-document-spanning layers: English and Spanish. When the document is exported as a PDF, the Retain Document Layers option is on. A Javascript button is added to the PDF to allow the user to toggle the entire document between languages with a single click.

All of those hypothetical but very real and common situations are entirely artwork-intensive projects. None are bookish, text-heavy documents involving high page count, repetitive page-to-page designs requiring master pages, tables of contents, indexes, etc. In other words, none require (nor is even appropriate for) a page-layout application. Document-level layers is just as important for illustration/design applications as it is for page-layout applications.

"Container" (clipping path) treatment of pages is neither advantageous nor a suitable substitute for conventional document-wide page independent layers. Calling a page an "artboard" doesn't change that.

Given that this ship has probably sailed, I know I and others are probably fighting a loosing battle here. But failure to provide proper document level layers is a serious competitive disadvantage.

JET
 

Share this post


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

Example A. ...

Example B. ...

Example C. ...

Thank you for these detailed examples. Even though I have an understanding of the concept of document wide layers I missed real world examples in many of the posts on this topic (not just in this thread).

d.


Affinity Designer 1.8.2.620 (beta 1.8.4.650)   |   Affinity Photo 1.8.2.620 (beta 1.8.4.650)   |   Affinity Publisher 1.8.2.620 (beta 1.8.4.651)
Affinity Designer for iPad 1.8.2   |   Affinity Photo for iPad 1.8.2

Windows 10 (1809) 64-bit - Core i7 - 16GB - Intel HD Graphics 4600 & NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
iPad pro 9.7" + Apple Pencil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread cracks me up :0) Nice to see others share my frustration. I don't even understand how people cannot comprehend the need for global layers*.. then again I've only been a graphic designer for 30 years.

 * ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLISHER (and since they want their suite to "function as a unit"  it'd have to be implemented in all 3).

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.