The video explains the critical problem with CDR 2022.
I am hoping CDR developers take note.
https://youtu.be/E1GHcI7-0jU
If anyone knows what the problem is please let me know.
My apologies for not responding sooner.
I ahve yet to resolve the problem even with a clean install of Windows 11 and only CDR 2022 installed.
This ahs been the worst experience I have had with CorelDRAw2 it has cost me money out of pocket to re-emberse a client What the hell is Corel doing!
I never had the spot colors being black unless there was a job from a previous version opened or a spit palette pulled in created in a previous version.
I resolved the eyedropper issue by uninstalling VideoStudio 2023. After the latest Windows updates I'm going to test again.
I had that issue back in Corel X7 I believe.
The bite is Corel is not fixing the eyedropper.
The rabbit hole goes deeper because the palettes that display by default are not what has been set in the global color settings.
Draw used to have a simple ut spread out method to do all the things that you're supposedly to be able to do in the properties bar, then that migrated to the properties docker.
None of these evolutions of features had ever been carried out with an entirely functional outcome.
Things happen differently in Corel than in a small code focused developer.
Both start with a feature plan for a version.
The focused developer reiterated the design as it is being developed and seizes the opportunities to add that extra bits that was unrealized in the design document. :What the hell, it only added a day to development and the result is 200% better.
Corel, having become this creature of habit, deliver the design to developers and not iterate beyond the design when writing code. That's the only way you can explain the crunch between a perfect new feature and what we get.
How does that work in practice and what sort of outcome does it generate?
That how you get the "new improved" curves. VOMIT!
Programmer "This is auto button is completely fricken useless, we need to remove it!"
Management "Don't do anything not in the design document. It will impact the marketing we have already written up with screen grabs."
Yani "You useless (*&&(^&(*^$*^ you still haven't fix the damn curves, that are as useless as *** on a bull!" (Typically in the vernacular)
Corel "We can't touch that code again, anyone that has touched that code has broken it."
So why exactly is this process so utterly crappy. It's because not enough was done right when the code was first written and now people have left that knew it inside out and we have to review that code again like explorers on Mars.And restart a whole A/C and Beta process around it.
If this process was working, I wouldn't be complaining about curves for 20 bloody years that it's a PITA.
Coreldraw was always poorly coded but you kind of have it right. What I believe has evolved is a set up code modules that revolve around a central base code that's so convoluted that making some changes that seem obvious as needed and seem simple due to the the nature of the interaction of the code are too expensive to change. Past examples would be the cost of proper color management, making that one critically needed change was almost the entire budget for one release cycle. Certainly worth it as it changed the position of the entire suite for professional file creation in a very positive way.
A current example would be the features that are application controlled verses those that are document controlled. An example is the ability to set as default the outline to a specific position. When you set this it's done by setting then saving settings as default. However it is also controlled by application aspects, I.E. by color model, meaning that once you set RGB outline settings you can only get the process to retain the settings via a template. If you close your document with the settings even if you save it when you start your next new document not only are some of the defaults gone the program becomes very difficult to use in terms of outline repeatability.
This feature is needed because creating web objects with outlines set to the inside makes the process easy as everything you draw is the size as reported in the property bar.
However RGB inkjet print jobs then also must have a default of outlines set to the inside so in cases where you need to trap you must manually set that one outline to straddle the boundary box and make sure not to accidentally hit the save as default. If you do hit the save as default the file will permanently become unmanageable.
There are literally dozens and dozens of things like this, the keep desktop objects on layer is one. Once that's activated, a file created and saved if that file is opened on a machine where it's off by default the simple act of opening the file and selecting a page can throw all the desktop objects to hell, with no warning.
It's a feature that needs to be document controlled but is application controlled and for multi-page multi-size pages on by default only.
The there's the show grid at 800% zoom, it's on by default in the application and must be turned off every time I open and edit an image, the setting never saves with the image and the ability to edit the controlling file was removed.
No one can rewrite the whole program or even recompile it with a more recent compiler without the risk of introducing errors.
Given that GPU, multi-threading and 64bits have been introduced since 1.0. The "old code" wouldn't be that old in the core of the program.
Draw is built on the efforts of many people over 30 years. Those people have died, retired, moved to Google etc. Even if Corel was the best place in the world to work, there are going to be issues with knowledge transfer to new staff.
There are issues that are difficult to resolve and issues that are easy to resolve. The easy to resolve issue is transparency and using that to drive development in a direction that leads to outcomes that matter to the industry.
The whole "secret features" drama is a total waste of time. There is a point where "secrecy" works against reality.
I understand that the corporate leaders have the desire to protect what they see as proprietary information. However I've come to believe that proprietary information that they're protecting is not how they handle complex fills or some other high end feature but it's how certain things like the odd assignment of what is application controlled or document controlled.
If you think about the facts, the program when through a few rewrites, 16 to 32 to 63 bit for example then the rewrite in version 2019. They chose, (it seems) to not examine any of the real technical shortcomings but to replicate them and to add BS lipstick on a pig features.
I see then adding the (I'm a no nothing designer) AI features in the future, the smart selection mask is an example, I expet to soo see the AI features from PaintShop Pro to soon sneak in.
I expect that even the employees responsible promoting the program or even listing new features are completely out of their realm, the planar mask, the smart selection made, mask fade and smooth which modernize Photo-PAINT get little to no promoting because those doing that have no understanding of image editing. I also think this disconnection from the product is some of what's being kept from the public.
David Milisock said:proprietary information
OK... let's have an think about this, what it really is and what it isn't.
It's not 1985, we no longer reinvent the wheel, write in assembly (one hopes), rather code libraries are available for at least the hack work.
There are no longer 2 Drawing programs in the Windows universe but many. Regardless of levels of perfection there are examples for most code requirements.
To claim code secrets are of value is pretty limited in the overall value of Draw. Perhaps a few deep code secrets but most of the value in the code is in the processes good or bad that are presented on screen today which were a user collaboration. Users bought the product, users have at times had significant input via various means of contact.
Whether you give positive or negative feedback, providing it is honest, you are doing the best for the user base that you can.
Taking this out of Corel Land for a minute...
There was this Facebook post for a local charity, multiple spelling errors and the most heinous punctuation and capitalization.
I made a comment... "If you want to be taken seriously then you need to improve your grammar."
I get this message... "The girl that does our advs is disabled, you have upset her very much...."
How do you think I replied? "Oh I'm so sorry you poor thing!"
NO!
I told her she need to proof read what her disabled girl does then gave her 300 words on how to proof read.
Any negative comments that are untrue around here get deal with pretty sharply.
The brass will do whatever it is they will do with this product. Continuing to add nothing particularly useful, leaving know hideous things in place like auto screw your image, ignoring odd bugs to chase these questionable new features and clearly over pricing the product... seems to be working, let's assume good enough.
On the other hand we have feature bloated programs to which more features are added.
And this 1990 concept of program interoperability. It's really horrible, the new PP for any photo opened, the no preloading of code, the whole interface without any concept of workflow, just detached and poorly connected applications.
It is exactly what it is, unchanged since Corel 1.0. This is the heart of the issue. It's where the most gains are to be made in grabbing new users.
I'd say that from what I see much of the core code is in pretty good shape.
The interface, as more features were added has become illogical and in so many ways. You are trying to find an action amongst a clutter, some of which no serious person would ever bother with. This is the software equivalent of fancy stitches on a sew machine. Industrial sewing machines don't have fancy stitches. They are design to do a job well and at speed.
By all means keep the current code alive for all the munters. But recognize this ain't the future mates!
Need a good hard look at everything particularly workflow, reduced distraction, speed of use, program to program interfaces...
On what occasions when you have text selected do you need to see polygon, the full menu, some docker of no relevance...
I'm sorry but it all comes down to being 2nd to Adobe rather than first to ourselves. It's a totally pointless stupid race to the bottom.
This is core interface stuff that needs major revision. It's not the hard core code, it is what is surrounding it. The hard work on this is in iterations from first principles of the interface up. And it need plenty of feedback, I dare say it should be done in public view or at least without some false notion of secrecy. There's an old saying, begin with the end in mind.
Start with only an interface between application and the feedback system.
Then add the rulers, what good and bad here? I'd put hiding the scale button too far into the interface.
Then add some objects, a bitmap, bit of text etc NO TOOLS. Ask is the interface between editing these objects worthy of a future?
At every step along the way asking "do I really need to see that on screen".
For example, select absolutely nothing in Draw. What you will see is a heap of active menus that have sub items all of which are inactive. I've never noticed it before but it is seriously poor design.
That's bad, if it is dead it is dead, don't tempt the user to waste time follow blind allies. Then the question, is it important to show the user all the dead menu items at all.
The assumptions that were made when the programs were designed no longer apply.
And what we can assume about the future is more of everything hardware wise.
Separate programs with no preloading of code in an age where most of us run 32GB of RAM?
If they are serious about making money out of this code then there is some work to do beyond the current applications. New fancy stitches year after year isn't going to cut it.
I think to have this conversation among many people, the process needs to be additive. You can't look at the whole at one time.