![]() ![]() For example, you can't constrain the movement of points directly vertical or horizontal therefore you can't really make a perfectly symmetrical envelope. And lastly, the envelope warp tool was also just not good enough. None of the controls yielded any kind of predictable or repeatable result where as in something like Illustrator, you can pretty much get a good result with no tweaking at all sometimes. Additionally, DrawPlus had a very terrible vector tracing feature. So these were very terrible quality tools. For example, if you drew a half circle, just the brush stroke, no fill, then zoom in/out, suddenly, you'd be seeing a fill in that shape. ![]() And the true vector brush in particular had an additional problem where if you created a simple line, then zoomed in or out to some random level, the stroke would visually appear as if it's filled with a color. Movements such as "sketching" quickly, is almost certain to cause a serious glitch with a brush stroke which will freeze the whole program. Drawing slowly would create a line with a zillion jaggy anchor points. All of the brushes had some particular problems. I can tell you for sure that the true vector brushes in DrawPlus were quite buggy. I would have to guess that the reason that these things didn't make it into Affinity Designer was because the quality of those features was so poor that they didn't want to use them until they were made better. Is this worth purchasing a legacy copy of Drawplus for? (Also for the envelope vector warp option that does not yet exist in AD?)Ĭan we make true vector brushes in AD? Can they be imported from DrawPLus? I see that opportunity diminish whenever I see a feature implemented in a mere "me, too" fashion, as is arrowheads. That is what I see as the core of potential advantages over Illustrator: The fact that it is a decades-old stack of newer features merely "bundled with" a bunch of outdated basic features. ![]() It would be a true game-changer even for long-time AI users who have never really discovered the kind of brush-based applications I'm talking about, just because Adobe's treatment is too "standalone" as opposed to being truly integrated with its own preexisting features of the program. I am convinced that a truly innovative implementation of what I call path stokes and path ends that could be combined into user-defined path styles could yield both a much more powerful "arrowheads" feature and a vector-brush feature more powerful, versatile, intuitive, and elegant than Adobe's treatment. This is also why I am so very disappointed in the merely "me, too" treatment of arrowheads. That doesn't suggest that what you (and I) would call "real" vector brushes are on the unpublished road map. Hopefully, that's what the eventual goal is (perhaps after sorting out the problems associated with the present sub-par expanded stroke results).īut it is disconcerting that the current brushes are called "vector" brushes. As always, Illustrator's implementation could be easily exceeded in power and versatility, and that's what I want to see in Affinity Designer. Hear hear! It's been demonstrated that a lot of nice things can be done with the brushes in Designer, but calling them "vector" brushes just because the raster images they contain follow a spline path, is entirely misleading.Īctual vector brushes (in which the brush's base artwork is vector paths) enable you to do an entire world of more powerful things:įor example, A single "Pattern Brush" in AI can be built to enable creation of a mechanically correct hex bolt of any length and diameter. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |