Affinity Designer: A Love Story
design.infinum.com
design.infinum.com
They’ve erred on the other end of the spectrum from Adobe. Rather than get greedy and force users into renting their software as Adobe has, they’ve tried to stretch out a very low price of entry into a multi-year series of free updates – and it’s not working.
I paid a mere $50 for Affinity Designer half a decade ago. While it’s seen some valuable updates since then, the core promise of an Illustrator killer remains out of reach: Key features like blends, pattern brushes, distortion envelopes, and more have sat on the 1.x roadmap for years, and the marquee feature of 1.8, released a few weeks ago, was a years-in-the-making bugfix for the expand stroke feature.
I want to give Serif more money so they can bring Designer up to speed with Illustrator, as fifty dollars every 5+ years clearly doesn’t support the kind of development effort this requires. I don’t want to subscribe to Designer either, but there are other proven models: Look at Sketch, which has an optional, annual upgrade program, and has shipped vastly more functionality than Designer has in the same time period.
My criticism isn’t entirely fair as Serif has also been occupied with launching Photo and Publisher during this time, but there’s no escaping the conclusion that Designer has stagnated. I really hope the company finds the right course correction that keeps the Affinity range affordable while sustainably funding development.
Clearly it will be insanely hard to compete with Illustrator. It’s a brand name and industry standard.
But if you can convince enough people that they can get a pretty good approximation of Illustrator for a fraction of the price (and you adjust your rate of shipping features accordingly), that can be a great business model.
One company I worked for had one laptop with Creative Cloud shared between an entire department because they couldn’t justify getting everyone CC just for occasional use.
When I pointed out what good value Affinity was, they promptly rolled it out for the entire organisation.
The thread has since been deleted.
Sketch has delivered on a lot of things, but I do not think their business model is root cause of their success.
I don’t want cloud only software. Do you want to offer syncing? Use my Dropbox or iCloud for that. You want some shared library? Use my Dropbox of iCloud for that.
Give ME control over MY assets and don’t take my work hostage.
Plus, if you stop paying the subscription you potentially lose access to your files. Yes, there’s a generous free tier, but that’s essentially VC funded at the moment. There’s no guarantee that will last forever, especially if they need to actually make some money.
At least with Sketch the file format is well understood and you can keep using whatever version you end up with when your licence expires.
Because of this, I've spent a lot of time reading about why people choose Figma, and the reasoning is simply that they value working together more efficiently more than they value data ownership.
There are a few interesting take-aways that come from that observation:
1. Over time, there might be a divide with file-based apps for personal use on one side, and web apps for group use on the other (we're probably already here outside of some areas, like video editing and programming, where people still collaborate by editing files).
2. Even for the file-based apps, outside of expert users, it's actually probably preferable for most users to use a web-based app and take their risks with the company behind it, rather than keep track of those files themselves. E.g., picture users with no backup strategy, and all their files on one computer in their house. For these users, dealing with the future of Figma is probably safer than them keeping track of their files themselves.
3. Another fascinating angle here is that programming ends up side stepping all these trade-offs entirely, just because of version control (which is facilitated by plain text file formats), which solves both problems simultaneously (collaboration and offsite backups). Version control, and by extension plain text, are such powerful concepts that they end up splintering off programming from the trajectory the rest of the software industry is on.
You’re right. Individually, files stored in Figma probably are a lot safer than on a hard drive that’s never been backed up. Organisations should probably think hard though.
Sketch files are basically a bundle of zipped JSON files and image assets, lending themselves quite nicely to version control.
Abstract, for example, is a nice UI layer over Git and neatly adds versioning, collaboration, and developer hand off to Sketch.
For me, this is the #1 issue with the recent trend for subscription models. I do think a lot of these firms are price gouging as well, but even if they weren't, it's just too much risk that something we depend on to do our work might be changed or even entirely discontinued if the business running it changes its mind or fails.
I've had salespeople straight-up promise me that X or Y software company is far too big to fail and will be around forever. I've also seen enough big name tech companies fail over the years to know what that promise is worth.
We would rather stick with old versions of the big name titles, or use alternatives like the Affinity suite or Sketch where you have your copy and it really is yours, than jump on that bandwagon. I've had salespeople tell me that this is a liability, and that everyone else is moving on and our software won't be compatible with the new file formats or other such excuses. To date, the number of times we have been seriously stung by that since the likes of Adobe went subscription-only is zero, and the number of cases where it's caused a bit of inconvenience but we worked around it without too much trouble is I think one, so I'm willing to take my chances.
Assumption #1: Design documents are contained in a file, and that file should be portable.
Tools like Figma are closer in nature to SaaS products than they are to native, file-based, raster editing softwares like Photoshop. You don't expect to be able to export your Slack workspace into a file and import it into another tool. You expect to have a means of migrating that data, potentially by exporting that data into a common format (e.g. JSON, CSV), transforming it into a format compatible with the target, and then either importing it using a provided tool or an API.
Assumption #2: Design tools all work similarly enough that document structures are largely portable.
While UI modalities remain similar enough on the surface, the underlying capabilities that produce the visual are exceedingly different. Look at type, for example—even Sketch and Figma, which are similar conceptually and of the same era, render type so differently that even robust import/migrate tools fail to capture the position of text within a few pixels for even basic, single-line, single-style text. Notions of seamlessly switching between tools disregards the real-world complexity of fonts, color profiles, raster manipulations, version history, comments, plugin-generated metadata, symbols/components, and more.
Assumption #3: There's no way to export a Figma document.
You can get the entire document structure from Figma via the API. This is the same data the viewer uses to render the document. You do not need to understand the internals of the .fig files.
1. what if I want to switch platforms?
2. what if they switch business models?
3. what if they go away?
The only real concern is #1 with Sketch, and that's your (org's) choice so you do have some choice in the matter. Since the format is well-documented there's ways to move away if #2 and you still have access to existing software with #3 (save issues with a licensing server perhaps).
Figma is a concern with all three unfortunately. Everything I see about its capabilities is amazing, but I've resisted for this reason. Hopefully they open their format.
Having said that, there are windows apps that can work with sketch files. For example https://icons8.com/lunacy
> Give ME control over MY assets and don’t take my work hostage.
Ah, but Adobe is enterprise software (enterprises of creative talent, yes, but still enterprises.) Enterprises don't want their employees keeping things in their personal cloud storage. They want enterprise-controlled cloud storage with ACLs on every step. They want your experience of making a layout to closely resemble the experience of a journalist writing+revising+publishing a story through their enterprise's CMS: a workflow where everything is actually a (perhaps automatically) requested-and-then-granted permission that can be audited and metric-tracked in the middle.
Mostly, this is because this approach allows the enterprise to know how much to pay out in IP license fees. Your Dropbox storage—even if it's Dropbox for Teams—isn't going to let them query out the set of status=delivered projects that have ownership=external assets linked to them.
You can't really sell this sort of thing as non-cloud software, unless you're selling an on-prem Asset Management Server to go along with your on-the-workstation software. (As many enterprise B2B companies used to do!)
One thing that could "fix" this is if an enterprise cloud storage provider (e.g. Box) offered the ability for other B2B SaaS providers to create deep "plugin" functionality for their system, such that your Box storage could contain Adobe assets that were ACLed, linked, and tracked (by callbacks from Box's servers to Adobe's servers) just as they are in Adobe's cloud. But until that happens, I don't see any other solution being practical for enterprise customers.
There are any number of reasons feature updates might be coming more slowly than is ideal. As I'm sure everyone here is well aware, throwing more money at a development team doesn't necessarily make it faster.
But it does, especially over a multi-year timespan. Unless you really screw up in managing or hiring.
Assuming you hire reasonably skilled engineers and accept that they will take some time to integrate with the team (and that this will temporarily slow the team) then eventually you can build more stuff in any window of time.
For reference, see almost every software company.
> For reference, see almost every software company.
Like Apple, who has had to delay stuff meant for a .0 release to a .x update, a few times? Or Microsoft or Google who kill projects outright and still can’t decide which API to settle on?
Or Facebook etc. who took months to implement Dark Mode?
FYI, you can view their accounts on the UK's Companies House website: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05041038/filing-h...
Like you eluded to IMO they should just do the traditional thing, charge for upgrades?
Not trying to nit-pick on spelling, but they're very different words -- and HN has many readers for whom English is not native. HTH
I ended up switching to Sketch and it's orders of magnitude again better for me. I primarily draw icons, logos and interface mockups. Sketch gives you lots of ways for quickly iterating over lots of mockups that I couldn't find in Affinity Designer so I'm much happier now.
Either way, they're both good for different use cases and both have free trials.
I'm considering Figma now because I don't like being tied to using a Mac and want something that might work on a Chromebook. You can run Inkscape on Chromebooks now but I'm pretty sure sure I can't go back to the interface. Are there any alternatives I haven't considered?
1) Auto-trace (come on - I could write this myself, not implemented yet?)
2) Provide option to preserve aspect-ratio in exported SVGs
Makes me wonder whether it's worth the continued investment in learning.
Also, I am not sure 'personas' is the best choice. After trying both, I somewhat prefer Inkscape's single UI which balances the needs of any sort of editing.
I find it quite jarring to go looking for a control for 10 seconds until I realize I'm in the wrong persona. Maybe I just need more practice though.
4) Flexible guide lines for free 3D perspective drawing
5) Things are rasterized, which are for sure supported in SVG or PDF (well done, inkscape)
6) (optional) TeX export
Anyway, with all these graphics tools like Affinity and Pixelmator that are an order of magnitude less than what came before, I don’t mind holes in feature sets—they’re just a set of tools to pick between for each job.
You can directly open these files. The .afdesign format of course is proprietary, and support for import and export of these formats does what I need.
What if I want to open an existing SVG file, quickly tweak it and save it in place though? The only way I know involves way too much clumsy clicking. That's what I meant by "geared towards" their own format - they don't make it easy to stick to just SVG.
All of their products never evolved, very poorly integrated, terrible UX and product design in general, bad software development maturity.
The last one is an educated guess based upon all of the previous points and also Steve Jobs publicly shaming them due to Adobe's inability to react on Flash issues. [1]
Adobe took very long time to react to Sketch software challenge, and the result (Adobe XD)is just about OK, nothing remarkable.
[1] Steve Jobs' open letter:
Thoughts on Flash
Don't get me wrong - I'm very glad we're all working in HTML5/Javascript/etc today and not ActionScript. And it would have required a herculean effort by Adobe to fix all of Flash's issues - probably a total rewrite of everything. But it's a lot easier to rewrite software than rebuild a giant community of developers.
From a strict business game theory perspective, it seems like Adobe really screwed this one up.
When they abandoned support for it they killed the careers of thousands of developers and removed their chance of dominating web app development.
Flex was miles ahead of what HTML 5 was producing at the time, if they had focused on getting the Flex compiler to output Javascript we would be living in a world where Adobe was synonymous with Web Dev.
Apple denied Abobe access to APIs they needed to make Flash run better on Macs
Jobs last point harks back to the main development platform for the Mac being Metrowerks CodeWarrior for Macintosh. Apple were essentially beholden to a third party with regard to improving their OS, which along with licensing other hardware vendors, nearly put them out of business. Whether you or anyone agree or disagree with his motive, you could see why Jobs didn’t want to run that risk again. There is also the elephant that is the App Store in the room, but again, once bitten (retailers not carrying Apple Compatible software), you can understand the decision, without necessarily agreeing with it.
> Apple denied Abobe access to APIs they needed to make Flash run better on Macs
It didn’t run particularly well on Windows, Linux or Android either...
Flash was designed, as its very first use case, for touch screen kiosks. So a lie.
Flash Player was perfectly performent, shit code that ran on it is different to the platform. When the first round of HTML 5 demos came out I made my own Flash equivalents, the HTML 5 demos ran at 80% CPU on my machine, the Flash versions ran at 5%.
> Flash was designed, as its very first use case, for touch screen kiosks. So a lie.
Bullshit. It was originally release By FutureWorks(?) as a vector tool to run on PenPointOS - that failed, so they pivoted to use the core as an animation tool for the web. Macromedia bought it added extra functionality, including ‘actions’. Adobe acquired Macromedia, and Flash, in 2006 (if memory serves correct). I remember them stopping development of, the vastly superior to Illustrator (IMHO), Freehand. They release Flex, which you may be confusing with Flash as it was based on it, as a platform for enterprise apps. If there was any kiosk targeted features, they were very definitely and after thought. So no, not lies.
Lastly performance. Annecdata. It ground my laptop to a halt and my desktop sounded like a jet engine taking off. I used quite heavy 3D and cad programs at the time, and even they did hog resources like Flash did. Admittedly, total annecdata. But enough people at the time saw fit to complain about it.
This is such nonsense.
Flash was available on Android, has no company hobbling its development, and still ran like cold molasses. It was canned by Adobe years before Flash was discontinued.
Your arguments remind me of the same Adobe fanboyism with which Thoughts on Flash was met at the time it was published — a decade has passed, evidence has disproven everything you’ve said, and you haven’t caught up because facts mustn’t get in the way of decrying the Apple bogeyman.
It turned Windows machines into jet planes, practically sterilised MacBook users who mistakenly ran Flash applets with their machines on their laps, and ran so poorly on Linux that running the Windows version in WINE worked much more; the Android version was over before it started, but no, “Apple blocked muh APIs”.
Give it up: Flash died the death it rightfully deserved. It has its time. That time passed.
Huh? What APIs are you referring to?
There was no SIP back then, and from what I understand you didn't even have to sign kernel extensions. You could do just about whatever you want... right?
Adobe’s current performance on Windows and Mac in 2020 does not add any backing to that argument either.
The flash player was a perfectly performany piece of software. The piece of shit programs people wrote for it were slow but that was not inherent of Flash. The same people went on to wrote piece of shit HTML 5 apps that peg out your fan just as much.
All software is a sandcastle build on top of a thousand other sandcastles. It takes active maintenance, especially if it's a professional-grade tool.
Subscriptions are the best way to ensure active, responsive product development. They align the developer's incentive (keep paying me) with your incentive (keep my tool working).
You wouldn't pay a contractor everything up front to renovate your bathroom. You'd pay as you go to ensure the work continues and is of good quality. Same thing with software.
for people who only need affinity's feature set, it's perfect alternative. but it isn't putting a dent into adobe's revenue.
i'm not sure why you care to continue to slam adobe. if affinity's products and sales model suit you, why care what adobe does?
Affinity, you pay like, what, fifty bucks, and you’re done. No subscription, no fucking around with cracks. That’s a lot more appealing to someone still learning their craft.
I have seen this change happen to Photoshop, there are a lot more young artists who are using Clip Studio or Procreate than Photoshop for their work. I constantly see articles here talking about how UI people are using Figma or Sketch or whatnot instead of AI because they are both better-oriented to what they do and are a lot cheaper, with a buy-once model instead of a subscription.
Adobe is also terrible at listening to their users. I can point you to a top-ranked feature request for AI that had its “user story” put into the pipeline to be implemented “soon” something like two years ago, which is a feature I personally was putting into their old feature request inbox a decade ago. Illustrator is really, really ripe for disruption, and Affinity has a solid competitor judging from my brief explorations of it.
> but I can really see Affinity being a lot more appealing to new artists.
Even experienced ones! Affinity Designer et al. are fantastic! The workbooks they publish (advanced user guides) free video tutorials are great as well. And they have a much nicer community than Adobe -- much more clueful and helpful.
In no way should my comment (that Adobe is better) be taken as even a hint of negativity towards Affinity.
They fill different needs, or should I say, a different spectrum of needs.
My main complaint is all the people griping about Adobe's subscription model. Who cares??? If Affinity is so good, use that instead! If you find you need the much richer feature set of Illustrator, guess what -- pony up. I personally wish that Affinity would either charge more or move to subscription. $50/yr really? I would love to pay $50/yr to see the most infuriatingly simple yet absent features get implemented. Especially now since I've been forced to Catalina and can no longer use my CS6 products. But that's not where we are, and doesn't give me grounds to complain that a product I want is expensive.
> Illustrator is really, really ripe for disruption
and self-driving cars are right around the corner ...
I don't even use the Affinity software, but I've bought them, purely because I want Adobe to have competition.
from a software standpoint, I could probably get away with Illy CS2 - the 'features' added since then have been .. mostly irrelevant. But if I don't have a subscription, I can't open client files.
- ed: numerous typos
But it’s such a product of a bureaucracy, built by people who never use it, and who awkwardly interface with the people who do.
Oh crikey - I forgot about the workarounds to achieve transparent gradients back in the old days! And we not that long ago got the ability to [finally] open PDFs with more than one page, which is - well, the fact that it didn't happen a decade or more ago - telling.
It’s currently half off, so you can grab it for 25!
Clip Studio's a special case. For certain uses, such as cartooning/comicing, it is WAY better than anything Photoshop can offer. I've got that as well and look forward to digging into it further, but even with extremely basic familiarity the tools for building panels/folders and speech bubbles in Clip Studio (or pretty much anything for a cartoonist/manga artist, especially if you're targeting black and white printed output) are so far beyond Adobe stuff it's quite silly.
I daresay there are parallels for UI people with Figma/Sketch or what have you. I can speak to the Clip Studio situation (and I'm also happy with Affinity Photo for what it specializes in).
That's hyperbole. Affinity products are quite close. Artists with more of a "hacker" mindset who can improvise a bit around missing features can also get by with open-source alternatives like Inkscape and Gimp.
Oh, and the new-user friendliness of Adobe products is abismall. I've never seem something more user-hostile than Photoshop - it imposes a brain-breaking mental model copied from the era of dark-room photo-effects or smth. and doesn't accept that everyone wants vector + raster in the same one software.
If the industry would not be so high-pressure and artists would have time to learn more tools and play with stuff instead of crunching to meet deadlines, stockholm-syndrome-software like Adobe's would die off... it only survives because that +10% productivity + extra 15% productivity for using the same tool as all the others and all the examples give overwhelmed and overworked artists an extra 25% they can't say no to!
They aren't. Just look in this thread for many many examples. One thing I didn't see mentioned was scripts.
If they were, Adobe would be scrambling.
There isn't this grey line where one tool can do the same things but in some different way. There is a sharp line where the cheap tool can't do it at all. You're comparing excel to google sheets.
UX enrages aside, the only thing not to like about illustrator is the cost. I also hate that you can't get a nice car for under $50k. That doesn't make the $50k and up cars an object of hate.
Then I learned Blender and nothing comes close for speed and efficiency, except maybe Vim.
I liked it overall and I liked what Serif has built it around it, even going so far as to offer printed documentation (the Workbooks) and the beautiful Affinity Spotlight website which is a really wonderful website unto itself. And there was the obvious benefit of the low cost and perpetual license.
The featureset was adequate for me and the interface initially won me over.
But I ended up moving away for two main reasons:
1. It tended to feel sluggish as hell. 2. Frequent crashes in the middle of work. 3. Lacking basic productivity capabilities, e.g. no ability to interact with the layers pane (rename, reorder etc.) using the keyboard shortcuts.
I was running it on an i7-7700k with GTX 1080 Ti and yet there was often a perceptible delay between clicking something and the action occurring. Even expanding layers in the layer pane, or double clicking a text field... there was a very small but perceptible delay.
More serious though was (3) especially combined with (1)... little things like tidying up file layers were vastly more time consuming than they should have been.
I was suggested to try Figma and have never looked back. It has keyboard shortcuts for everything and all interactions feel instantaneous... even though it runs within the browser! The first time I used it I was astounded and then made the switch within weeks. Haven’t run Affinity in over 18 months and it would take a lot for me to try it again.
I now run a Linux desktop anyway so not really even an option...
I also have Designer, and it is quite good...although I don't know enough about Illustrator to be able to compare them.
Adobe has gotten lazy and sloppy. The CC launcher/updater frequently needs to be reinstalled, and PS is slow in quite a few areas. Simple batch resizing photos in PS is a real chore because it only uses a single core. Affinity uses all of them, and the performance difference is pretty stark.
Affinity frequently updates their products with new features. I purchased this product a few years ago and haven't been charged for new releases.
Affinity allows 5 one serial to be installed on 5 machines.
All of their products are for sale for 50% off.
It's usually for manipulating non-photo raster stuff for the web. For photos, I pretty much use DxO (Lightroom equivalent) exclusively.
I have found Lightroom equivalents to have just the right amount of Photoshop functionality that a) lets me do everything I need faster than a dedicated Photoshop type app, b) lets me do that stuff in batches faster.
One thing I still think is clunky though is the Color Picker Tool. I have to select my paint brush, then click and drag the color picker to the color I want, then click the color I want again to get it on my paint brush. I think other tools simply let me hold alt+click on the color to get that color on my brush. But Affinity is like a 5 step deal which slows me down a lot.
Designer was a bigger win for me because I've always found the Inkscape UI baffling.
I'm an ex Sketch user, because I moved back to Windows (feel that Apple is ripping users off and I can get better choice, quality and performance elsewhere. I don't need shiny and thin and $20 cables that break often).
I like Figma - amazing what the engineering team achieved there. But it's primarily an online app and I'm worried they might get acquired by some of the bigger companies.
I'm now using Affinity Designer and Photo. It does most of the things I need. It has some minor UX annoyances (or maybe my Photoshop muscle memory is not fully overwritten yet).
Maybe I'm one of the dying breed that prefers to have a native app with a perpetual license and the option to choose when to upgrade and being more in control.
I'm not sure whether it's sustainable for Serif to charge $49 for an app. I'd be happy to pay more if it meant they could work on those other things mentioned here by others.
EDIT: typos
https://affinityspotlight.com/
It's also nice to see some competition against the behemoth that is Adobe. In particular, these smaller, more nimble competitors (Sketch, Affinity, Figma, Procreate) have shown that you don't always have to beat the dominant company in a market, just carve out enough space in the same market to succeed.
one thing that's odd is that you cannot export to bmp. it's been requested on their forums but continues to be strangely absent.
More generally, why do many tech companies charge for training in using their products? For instance, Google has GCP courses on Coursera, but you have to pay $49 month to access labs. I don't see this practice with physical goods, but we seem to accept with software.
https://affinity.help/photo/en-US.lproj/index.html (Photo) https://affinity.help/designer/en-US.lproj/index.html (Designer) https://affinity.help/publisher/en-US.lproj/index.html (Publisher)
Might be of use to anyone wanting to learn more about the products by way of the old-fashioned reading of the manual!
...why shouldn't they? They take extra time/money to create, and not all users will necessarily need them. If a third party wrote a book on Affinity and charged for it, we wouldn't bat an eye. Shouldn't the developer get the same privilege?
Nobody should be expected to pay for a manual; that's part of the product. An advanced book? Sure.
Look at Resolve: It has an EXTENSIVE (and pretty decent) manual, which costs nothing... and for most users, neither does the product.
Everyone wants the nicer things- the pro edition, the nice coffee table book, but it's not worth it to those same people.
This produces people who see things that are nice that they want, but they can't justify paying the extra money for.
Those people sometimes say things like "why is edition X so expensive? It's not worth it". In other words, it's economic nonsense to buy that thing.
But that's the point- it's not worth it- to you. But to some people, it IS worth it, and they're the target market.
The consumer self-identifies and self-selects which category they fall into. The fact that something isn't "worth it" or "too expensive" means that the consumer does not belong to that category of people for whom it makes economic sense to buy that product.
Affinity offers a huge amount of functionality at a price everyone can afford. Some people have more money which they would use to buy more Affinity stuff, if it was there. That's what those books are - more wonderful stuff for people to whom its worth it.
Differential pricing is how companies keep things affordable. In some sense the people to whom extras are worth it subsidize the low cost of the essential core for everyone else.
It's pretty nice.
It wasn’t always like that. A lot of the “disruption” that came from tech companies wasn’t necessarily about great tech but often their advantage was that they took shortcuts in terms of customer service. And good manuals were one of the costly things they dropped. Just compare Microsoft or Apple documentation from the 90s against what we have today. Back then they put some real effort into writing good manuals. Today it so just some auto generated stuff and even that doesn’t work well. Or try to file a bug and you just get an empty response from some bot.
I ended up having to stop using the iPad app because of the disk space issues and because I kept on losing work because Affinity Designer didn't save reliably.
I just wish it could properly injest .AI files. It opens them, but only does things with the PDF header part, resulting in a loss of all groupings. Things like long vectors (think trail routes on a hike/bike trail map) become split into LOTS of little pieces.
Affinity Designer is great if you're starting and sticking in it, but moving complex Illustrator docs into it kinda falls apart. :(
For me, it's the only non-Illustrator app that I tried that didn't mangle them too much (visually speaking). I had tried so many free and non-free (but inexpensive) apps on Mac and Windows that would have so many problems with .ai files. Once I would load them into an app, the would look nothing like I expected them to. My use case for .ai files is usually to simply convert them to svg or emf to be able to insert them into documents.
Thankfully I didn't have a need to edit them, because it sounds a little nightmarish from your experience.
For a specific example, check out this: http://www.cramba.org/storage/maps/pontiaclake/CRAMBA_Pontia...
In the original .AI the main mountain bike trail loop is a single path. Makes it nice and easy to work on. Bring it into Designer and I think it became dozens of really small ones?
I'd really like to move to a Designer workflow because AI is so expensive for the no-pay volunteer work that I do making these maps, but the up-front work of that would be tremendous. So for now... I just can't.
For more than a year now, I no longer need to use my old Illustrator license that I bought just before Adobe went cloud-only. Really impressed. And it's going to be a no-brainer for me to get an Affinity Publisher license as well, when I'll need to do multi-page print documents.
They're free and run in the browser. But I'm not doing much design work. Just shirt and badges.
Working with groups is still a nightmare even after years of demands by users for this feature.
See this thread started in 2014: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/1640-ad-is...
Affinity series is awesome. I bought their Photo last year, and today - they're running a sale - got the Designer. Very nice product!
Definitely will have a learning curve for someone that has only used paint.net, but will be nice when I need to do the occasion graphics work for personal projects.
Amazed Adobe hadn’t done something similar a long time ago.
Things you like, things you miss, etc.