Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler
-
@Kumr We are more limited on Windows but our options have improved from what they were before, thankfully.
-
@Subpath Its interesting app and have potential. With a little patience, it may be possible to accomplish some (or most) of those effects using VS.
@debraspicher Yes, VS is evolving.
-
@Kumr said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
With a little patience, it may be possible to accomplish some (or most) of those effects using VS.
of course
VS offers many possibilities to do things, thats is why it is my
favorite and main program for vector graphics.The interesting thing about Cavalry was, for me, the way
how different parameters can be linked to each other.
-
@Subpath For all my new projects I'm using VS, slowly moving away from AD. For image editing I am using Pixelmator/Photomator.
Cavalry is definitely interesting in that aspect. One more app may be worth checking out in this context is 'Paragraphic' (still in development) by Lostmids, the same company that developed Vectoraster.
-
thanks for the tip, also interesting but its Mac only
In the next few days I will post a possible solution
for Windows users, there is still a bit of work to be done
-
They mentioned that it will be a cross platform app. (https://paragraphic.design)
In the next few days I will post a possible solution
for Windows users, there is still a bit of work to be doneI am on Mac but curious about it.
-
will let you know
-
For myself, one of the primary advantages of Designer over VectorStyler is simply performance. I tend to work with more complex vector work/art, and where Designer works absolutely smooth, VectorStyler lags and stutters.
Illustrator, PhotoLine, and Inkscape also perform much better with the same vector files.
Of the lot, Designer and (surprisingly) Inkscape work the smoothest on my Windows 10 system (3080 12GB, AMD 7900X, 128GB Ram).
Inkscape used to be absolutely terrible. But the latest version works smooth and fast.
Dare I say? A tiny bit smoother even than Designer. I can tell now that I work on a 144hz screen.So, between the various apps my experience is that (with the same complex files) InkScape, Illustrator and Designer allow me to work smoothly with those files. Zoomed in, I reluctantly admit that InkScape actually wins (never thought to see the day).
And I am talking about a huge difference measured in frames per second. Where Inkscape and Designer feel smooth when dragging groups of items and transforming them (50-60fps or more), VectorStyler hits a framerate of:
...3 frames per second...
Illy sits around the 40fps. A tiny bit less smooth to work with.
PhotoLine still hits ~20fps (and speeds up to ~40fps when zoomed out), which is workable. And that app is not optimized for vector editing (more meant for high-end image editing).
All apps tested with the same SVG file.
So while I love VectorStyler's expansive tool set, I'd like to see some dramatic improvements in the performance stakes.
I tried all performance settings in VS, including turning on CUDA, multi-threading for all settings... But CUDA only slowed it down to a crawl, and multi-threading didn't really make much of a difference either.
Perhaps it is only my particular machine, though, that VectorStyler has issues with. Not sure. I read about other accounts on these forums with similar issues, so I am inclined to think it is something about the core of VS that limits its performance.
-
@Bones said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
For myself, one of the primary advantages of Designer over VectorStyler is simply performance. I tend to work with more complex vector work/art, and where Designer works absolutely smooth, VectorStyler lags and stutters.
Illustrator, PhotoLine, and Inkscape also perform much better with the same vector files.
I've also compared the performances of the vector illustration software with the text below and I believe Inkscape is the most performant one:
Text for performance comparison
To compare their performances, try to add more text into the textbox. For example, type "lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" at the beginning of the text.
-
@Bones said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
Illustrator, PhotoLine, and Inkscape also perform much better with the same vector files.
If you have some vector files with performance issues, please send it to csraba at vectorstyler.com I will try to find out what could cause this.
-
@Bones said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
including turning on CUDA,
CUDA will not affect vector rendering speed (it is for image effects).
multi-threading for all settings
These are enabled by default.
I also run tests on vector rendering here (all sorts of Macs and Windows) and I did not notice these issues.
There still are some open issues with text editing (under some conditions as shown in the file attached by @gotanidea) and these will be fixed.
-
@VectorStyler I will send you the sample file tomorrow.
@gotanidea Text rendering is a very different
kettle of teatesting context.I tested your test text in various apps. First editing text. Then moving the entire text box.
-
Illustrator has no issues whatsoever. Text editing works without lag, and moving the text box is entirely smooth at any zoom setting. Zooming in and out is fast and responsive.
-
PhotoLine has no issues with text editing, just like Illustrator. Moving a text box zoomed out also no issues (not as smooth as Illy). Zoomed at medium level moving the text box is a bit laggy. Zoomed in close moving the text is quite snappy again.
Zooming in and out is laggy when a lot of the text is rendered on-screen, though. -
Affinity Designer has no issues whatsoever while editing text. Moving the text box is very laggy at perhaps 2-3 frames per second. Text content cannot keep up with the movement.
Zooming in and out is fast and responsive though. -
Inkscape introduces long delays when editing the text. For a short sentence it may take a few seconds before it updates. Not workable. Moving the box is ever so slightly more responsive than Designer (or about the same).
Zooming in and out is somewhat laggy. Like PhotoLine it stutters more when a large text amount is rendered in the view. -
VectorStyler also introduces a lot of lag during text editing. It takes around a second for a new character to be typed. It is unworkable.
Moving the text box zoomed out is about as fast as Inkscape, but the text is greeked out. Zoomed in a tad to display the actual text halves performance.
Obviously this test is more academic than anything else. Yet it does show a general performance problem within this context with both Inkscape and VectorStyler. At the very least text editing shouldn't be affected that much by text quantity. Not when three other apps have no issues whatsoever with text editing.
-
-
@Bones said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
I tested your test text in various apps. First editing text. Then moving the entire text box.
Illustrator has no issues whatsoever. Text editing works without lag, and moving the text box is entirely smooth at any zoom setting. Zooming in and out is fast and responsive.
Thanks for the tests.
-
@Bones There will be improvements in the (near) future for the rendering speed on Windows. Clearly there are problems when large number of gradients are mixed in with vectors.
-
Affinity has spectacular performance; it must be built into the fundamental architecture from the bottom up. I have drawn really complex things in Affinity with effects and gradients by the hundreds, and my very old laptops with those ridiculously simple Intel graphics chips built into the motherboard delivered an impressive effort. I actually never really noticed such low performance that it got in the way of what I was doing. I hardly noticed it. And then, on these low-spec Windows machines, I was free from the driver issues that are on Windows with advanced graphics cards, which ultimately moved my work over to 100% Apple equipment on M1 and M2 chips, where I have worked wonderfully smoothly since.
My sense is that programs built up without such a fundamental focus on performance will have a very hard time achieving it by optimizing and refactoring. My good experience with Affinity on terrible hardware makes me smile when people talk about needing hardware that can almost run ChatGPT to use graphics programs seriously. No, not according to my experiences. My experience is probably that people buy and put 20 Porsches in front of a grain silo on roller skate wheels and do not see the potential for improvement in the actual silo they are pulling.
Just to say, optimizations can be a long haul with less effect if it happens from the top down. I have experienced this so often with software.
-
@Ingolf I suspect, at least in part, one reason Affinity performs so well is that the rendering to the display is not forced to be accurate. In too many instances I've had to recheck my source or export for even very small images because my viewport is blurrier even if I open the file straight from the OS, with no changes (yet). Yes, even at 100%.
Other programs may be slower, but at least I can fully trust what their engine shows on my display and it is consistent.
-
@debraspicher said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
@Ingolf I suspect, at least in part, one reason Affinity performs so well is that the rendering to the display is not forced to be accurate. In too many instances I've had to recheck my source or export for even very small images because my viewport is blurrier even if I open the file straight from the OS, with no changes (yet). Yes, even at 100%.
Other programs may be slower, but at least I can fully trust what their engine shows on my display and it is consistent.
Adobe Illustrator's rendering is accurate with a very good performance, although no vector graphics software has beaten Macromedia Freehand's performance yet.
-
@debraspicher said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
@Ingolf I suspect, at least in part, one reason Affinity performs so well is that the rendering to the display is not forced to be accurate. In too many instances I've had to recheck my source or export for even very small images because my viewport is blurrier even if I open the file straight from the OS, with no changes (yet). Yes, even at 100%.
Other programs may be slower, but at least I can fully trust what their engine shows on my display and it is consistent.
Oh. Not a problem in my work, never battled with that issue.
-
@gotanidea said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
Adobe Illustrator's rendering is accurate with a very good performance, although no vector graphics software has beaten Macromedia Freehand's performance yet.
Not my experience but my stuff if seriously complex. Importing it into Illustrator never was an impressive experience.
But I do appriciate if the rendering can be configured to be extremely accurate or not because I don't need it that much during the many, many hours of working, zooming, panning, adjusting. I need a responsive and ultrafast update.
-
@Ingolf said in Affinity Designer vs VectorStyler:
Not my experience but my stuff if seriously complex. Importing it into Illustrator never was an impressive experience.
But I do appriciate if the rendering can be configured to be extremely accurate or not because I don't need it that much during the many, many hours of working, zooming, panning, adjusting. I need a responsive and ultrafast update.
Let me explain for the record. I get the feeling this thread will age very well.
For my case, it's less important that the viewport is incredibly accurate for vectors while working, but when I check the work, I have to have the control to see the accurate result should I need to. Some of that is down to adding my personal touch to curves but also technical requirements (pixel-hinting smaller graphics).
There is a long-standing bug that affects my setup where AD will show "Pixel Mode" as a 200% view if I have a DPI scale =>150%. I must use Retena because it will show the proper view, but then also trust a new bug won't appear in its place, so I just altered my DPI scale OS-wide at a smaller scale to compensate. I'd run into so many bugs using Affinity software that I basically don't trust their products anymore for anything mission critical.
For Photo, I guess because the design of Layers are vector-based, they also may not display accurately during viewport fits in Windows. It's so subtle it can look like the image is of lesser quality or is compressed, but it's detrimental to understanding what will happen with the end result clarity-wise (especially with any filters). Photo's viewport is very unreliable for me. When this happens, I can be overworking an image without realizing it or missing details I could have worked with sooner to come out with a better final product."
Edit: Anyway, I don't intend to beat any drums. I do want to share details like this because it better illuminates on my own use case.
