The new version arrived so lets make some reviews … actually this could be continuation of the last closed thread Inkscpe vs illustrator  but per’se as possibility how smaller gets the gap between these two apps …
I’ll skip eventual tool comparison for later, and first think need to be pointed that the cmyk output is now linked officially to Scribus yet consequently the transparency issue still exist  so in this context the gap is still huge!?, the rest is somehow debatable or!?, but combo workflow of the two apps can come more than handy especially for large complex scenes … maybe someone here combines them and its willing to share its own pipeline …
… surely with the freeform’gradient’tool illustrator took huge leap ahead around the shading, plus add to that the 3D generator  thus we cant see them as anyhow equal, but lets hope some future integration of blender and inkscape will level that leap …
Wonder did developers used a.i. help around the tweaking?, anyway Illustrator is still “the name” in the game especially when compared with all the available plugin support, altho here and there can pop up some glitch like the one with the pantone pallet, so dont push the debate about the possibilities, but with which tool what is done easier … for me Inkscape is more intuitive and way faster when masking vectorized (heavy bezier line) 3d objects  but also its free so nicely suits mine anticorporatistic mood, so enough steam to peak it as favorite vector app … maybe to this I can add that havent mastered Illustrator in fullness so my stance is bit biased …
Probably the next more indepth new’features’videos can come handy for any newbie and ease the workflow …
@PJMiller great with small g or big one?, or maybe great for something and greatless for other?, surely for me is more than great coz I can never mask my 3d experiments in illu as I can in inks, tho I havent put extra effort to find workable way for that in illu, simply worked out in inkscape and sticked to it …
… and now seeing all the new tweaks so I’ll stick to it full time surely!, tho not sure whether could find substitution for some illu plugins like the astute halftone  or the creatide colorist 
Think that is solved with Scribus, still as there so as in Affinity (as I can remember) the transparencies are issue, altho this is my understanding from the past and need now to check whether this is solved, hm as if there was some solution but cant remember the workflow, need to check some older bookmarks …
Now, Illustrator cant be ditched simply coz its name of the game, personally I expect they will make full integration with aPS in future through some good bezier engine, even with full 3D integration, logically if want to keep their status, tho they already have nice pipeline to many 3D modelers and texurers  so even if stay lazy that will not decimate their profit coz they’ve built name that bears stability with it …
On other hand if the aim of the CG Industry is Craftsmanship instead Art  then we cant expect nor Inscape nor Illustrator to make huge leaps ahead, altho that depends from the competitiveness of all vector app market too, so cant say with certainty whats ahead!, and probably with the hype around a.i. things will speed up!?
Working in a print production environment, you can always tell an illustrator PDF from an inkscape PDF - illustrator PDF’s are sometimes trash, if the user that generated the PDF doesn’t understand the production processes / limitations. Inkscape PDF’s on the otherhand, are always trash and require a near total re-build in a professional tool (such as illustrator).
I watched the ILLUSTRATOR CAN’T DO THIS clip all the way through, surprisingly, because I found it interesting. Mostly, that’s because I’m relatively unfamiliar with Inkscape. I’d have little or no use for at least half of the features shown, but it got me interested enough to download Inkscape in case I ever get time to tinker with it.
What bothered me about the video, though, is the premise. Trumpeting software features that one app has and another doesn’t just feels juvenile to me, and smacks of those posts you’ll see on forums, saying stuff like “Word can do this…I repeat MICROSOFT WORD can do this, and InDesign CAN’T???”
Of course I realize applications are products and as such, they actually are competitors of sorts, but that doesn’t mean all their capabilities should match up under some “natural law of what I want”.
Sorry if this is like ranting about something that doesn’t really matter; it’s just a mindset I can’t condone.
Then you get into an argument over what Illustrator can do but Inkscape can’t, and it turns into a great big uh… spitting match. I have a signmaking software (SignLab) that has done things Illustrator can’t do for decades. Whatever.
I don’t view a comparison of two drawing applications as a problem. To me, it’s helpful information. The guy making the video said he previously created a video about what Illustrator can do that Inkscape can’t (although I couldn’t find it).
If someone uses a comparison to bolster a biased, non-objective, taking-sides argument about one being better than another, as in a Chevy vs. Ford argument, that’s another matter.
I watched the entire video and don’t have a use for most of the additional features. I could use the bar and QR code generation feature, but there are plenty of free web-based tools to create them. As someone who spent a couple of years as a technical illustrator early in my career, Inkscape’s ability to create isometric background grids would have been useful.
Of course, since I can’t even get the latest release of Inkscape to open on my computer, even the useful features make no difference to me.
The isometric grid being impossible in illustrator isn’t really true, if you accept some relatively minor limitations and are willing to spend a little time, do some basic math and draw the grid yourself before converting to guides.
Yes, that’s true. The video mentioned that as a workaround. I think the point was that Illustrator provides built-in horizontal and vertical grids, plus vanishing point grids, but oddly enough, no built-in isometric grids.
My workaround is the indispensable plug-in for Illustrator called CADTools.
If I ever wanted to do Iso, the tool is in there.
While this stuff is interesting, I just hope I don’t ever see the files. I’m having enough trouble with the ‘creative’ way designers use InD and Illustrator, without adding freeware to The List.
We have that here as well. I’m not sure how often our prepress people use it anymore, but it was instrumental to our prepress efficiency when initially purchased.
When I started here, we had been manually calculating and scaling each piece of art for a wrap, one at a time. Some vehicles had hundreds of decals and/or wrapped panels. It was all extremely tedious to show on a vehicle’s mechanical drawing at-scale with size callouts.
CADTools built in scaling and units panels were a huge gain for the department. We never did use the axonometric drawing tools for anything though.
We use it mostly for dimensioning in PDF proofs, when sign building and for install elevations. The scaling tools are still used here a lot too, to avoid those calculations. We don’t do Iso drawings in Illustrator. We have AutoCAD for that.
Used it for that too. Some installers really want to have best-guess “exact distance / size” location callouts on the vehicle drawing for placement and/or graphic element size - especially if it’s been panelized or otherwise split up in some odd way to make best use of the material’s roll width.
Pretty handy. There have been a lot of comments on illustrator’s uservoice pages asking for built-in scaling/dimensioning tools and the dorks over at adobe just can’t quite wrap their heads around what users are asking for. Some folks have just told them to go look at CADTools for an example.
We don’t do anything requiring perfect mechanical drawings, so no AutoCAD here. We have somebody somewhere using some kind of CAD software to draw up the plans for sign blanks that I have to use on occasion to re-build from in illustrator in order to make a cuttable vector, but that’s pretty rare.
We do site surveys before doing wallcover or office logo jobs or museum installs. The placement of everything on the walls gets dimensioned so our installers just DO rather than CALL. We build a lot of exhibit structures and wall units and also do a lot of custom millwork so we have a whole drafting dept on AutoCAD. Talking to each other via Illustrator is a real chore though. For some reason, the dorks at Adobe can’t figure out that we don’t want to export an exploded .dxf (all splines.) We want to export Polylines. Lots of gymnastics involved sometimes.