Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Satellite View

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Satellite View

    Hi David,
    Could you please comment on why the Satellite view and amount one can zoom in is so poor in ACDSee Photo Studio 5 (Catalina) compared to ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2019 (Windows 10) when geotagging images.
    Thank you.
    Regards,
    John

  • #2
    Hello

    Could someone please answer my question above of the 10-10-2019.

    Also are all the known bug fixes for ACDSee Photo Studio 5, as shown on your website going to be fixed with an update prior to the next version being released, as I understand it in November..

    Thank you.

    John

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi John,

      Apologies for the delayed reply.
      In ACDSee Mac, the Map service is provided by Apple Maps, whereas on Windows, the Map service is provided by Google.
      The Satellite view in ACDSee Mac is the same as what's in Apple Maps.

      Regarding the known issues, unfortunately, not all issues will be fixed in our next release.
      Are there any particular issues you have in mind?

      Regards,
      David

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi David,

        Thanks for your reply and the honesty about the known issues, much appreciated.

        It stands to reason to me these known issues should be addressed in the current version of the software and not when the next version or version after that is released as you are taking Mac users for a ride and expecting them to pay for each version that is released.

        Mac users have had the raw end of the stick ever since the first version of ACDSee for Mac was released, it’s about time your CEO did something about it.

        Going by the number of issues Tahunga is finding and if only half of his issues are correct your software is riddled with bugs.

        We are not software testers and you should be listening to the users.

        Kind regards,

        John

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by harpo View Post
          Hi David,

          Thanks for your reply and the honesty about the known issues, much appreciated.

          It stands to reason to me these known issues should be addressed in the current version of the software and not when the next version or version after that is released as you are taking Mac users for a ride and expecting them to pay for each version that is released.

          Mac users have had the raw end of the stick ever since the first version of ACDSee for Mac was released, it’s about time your CEO did something about it.

          Going by the number of issues Tahunga is finding and if only half of his issues are correct your software is riddled with bugs.

          We are not software testers and you should be listening to the users.

          Kind regards,

          John
          I've been thinking about being an unpaid beta testers since the early days. This is actually an ongoing scam ACD is running to get free testing of their products. Think about it....you just paid another chunk of change for a half done app still in development. It's time we users get smart and just go somewhere else; there are several good alternatives. Although ACD has a unique approach by not using catalogues, it's not that big of a deal, really. Just let this app continue on it's own, it may not make it without our help and our frustrations will be gone either way. If you're on a Mac, Photos is very good, it's seamlessly integrated, lighting quick and solid. Photos updates are always free as it's joined at the hip to the OS. The other one is Adobe Elements with a ton of built in functions that won't be found anywhere else.
          Let's get wise and send ACD a message. One of the magazine reviewers need to get wind of this scam and publish an expose...Enough..

          Comment


          • #6
            Exposure X5 does not use catalogues and is a much richer environment...add that one to the list of better alternatives...another is Luminar 4. ACD is taking so long to get anything decent on the market, it's being overrun by the competition...

            Comment


            • #7
              Interesting that you mention using Exposure (X4 in my case), a well-balanced LR impersonator easily yielding excellent IQ! I like it too, but there is more to be said regarding ACDSee as well:

              I may find ACDSee for Mac 5 somewhat slower (initial refresh), buggier (although not a single crash since 5.3), less complete (some repair tools still missing), yet I can't disqualify its usefulness given some brilliant qualities (its unique "Light EQ" and "Color EQ" tools, for instance) which often help produce stunning beauties! In just a few minutes of easy post-processing, ACDSee for Mac 5 can lead to small visual miracles that would have taken hours even days to achieve (if at all possible) in other software that I currently own i.e. ACDSee, Aperture, Exposure, Lightroom, ON1, Pixelmator Pro, RPP, SilkyPix Pro, etc. I do enjoy its VIEW mode as well, by the way.

              What I repeatedly find confusing in ACDSee, however, is the "Save as" or "Done" duel that takes place in my head at the end of each and every work session; Murphy's Law, I always end up losing my modification history!

              I just wish I knew more about the upcoming ACDSee for Mac 6 versus version 5, IQ wise: any foreseeable improvement above the already good stuff? Anyway, if cool new functions keep being added and existing bugs keep being fixed at a steady pace, thanks to David and its Mac team, it may be worth the yearly upgrade ticket!

              P.S. Luminar isn't even able to frame m4/3 RAW files properly; ON1 makes most RAW files look ugly; SilkyPix interface is, well, like Hell on Earth; LR isn't updated anymore without nasty monthly subscription; Pixelmator is dizzying... All options encompass strengths and weaknesses!
              Last edited by Marathonianbull; 11-10-2019, 11:09 AM.

              Comment

              Working...
              X