derei

Tested in both 2.0.4 and in 1.x versions, and the issue seems to be the same. This is both worrying and reassuring: it looks like a ported error from some core programming of the app, but at the same time this can narrow the options and speed up discovering why and what's not working. So, devs... please dig!

The issue (tested in Designer, but presumably it may be in all apps): a character can't be made subscript. However, it can be made superscript. The toggle works, but there is no change on the screen.

There are more posts on this forum about this feature, but none in the bug report area, as I could see.
Please fix this ASAP.
 

It's hard to say for sure whether you have demonstrated a bug, as we do not know what font you're using. And in the Typography settings (which we can see you're using), the font must support whatever options you've chosen. That means, for example, that you can only have a subscript "t" using those options if the font provides an actual subscript "t" character.
On the other hand, the Super/Subscript option in Positioning and Transforming directly above the Typography section should work for all characters.
However, as an experiment I tried Arial, and checked the Glyph Browser to confirm what subscript characters are available. And I got strange results:

From the Glyph Browser listing, the i, r, u, v, and j should also have become subscript in addition to the letters that did.
So something is going wrong, but it's not a complete lack of Typography subscript support.

Or, it's this:
 

Although this topic seems old, maybe someone would be interested to replicate my method (i'm using it for creating shadows):
☐ Image_to_blur ⬕ Live Filter - Gaussian Blur (HIGH value)  ⬛ Live Filter - Gaussian Blur (LOW value) Apply a gradient masking on the topmost live filter, to reveal the second blur filter applied. 


obs:
* it doesn't matter which filter is on top, as long as you apply the gradient on the topmost one and the direction of the gradient reveals the blur transition in the desired direction
* the Blur Live Filters have to be applied as children to the layer to blur, so they will only affect that one.
 
 
Attached an example of this procedure, along with the complementary layers to cast a shadow.
* for gradient blur, only the info in red boxes is relevant. The gray info is only important for shadow casting.

Considering that Linux and OSX kernels are pretty similar, or at least derived around UNIX, which makes them to work somewhat similar, would it be so difficult to have a Linux version of Affinity Suite derived from the OSX version? I do understand that coding for Windows and OSX is literally maintaining two different software, but if a Linux version could be easily derived from the OSX version, perhaps the work involved to maintain it would pay off, as it wouldn't actually be a 3rd software.
I may be wrong here, but this is why I am raising the question... to find out if this is a possible route.

Also, everyone is arguing the EXISTING market, how many users on Windows/OSX/Linux, etc... I don't think this evaluation has any relevance. Yes, this is how is NOW. Bit anyone asked WHY? Is not because Linux is inaccessible, it is because most developers ignored it in the past. But that's not true anymore. Even Steam noticed the relevance of addressing Linux users.
It was argued "linux is for nerds". I'd disagree. Linux is NOT ONLY for nerds. Not anymore. Yes, it can be and there are flavors specifically developed for specialized use. But a lot of linux flavors are there for the general public, even tailored for smooth transition from any other popular OS.
The increased awareness in data privacy is making more and more users look into privacy friendly software. Artists and Creators are not always ignorant. Many are growing interest in protecting their digital life. So, a patronizing attitude that says "we don't develop for linux because our users aren't informed and educated enough to use linux" is actually offensive towards your clients pool. Moreover, I believe you should be encouraging privacy and good ethics by supporting people to migrate towards more privacy friendly options. 

Many of us don't use Adobe for a reason.  Please don't use them as any sort of model of what Affinity should be doing.
I own multiple computers (a proud supporter of Affinity and strongly encourge anyone that has any remote interest in visual art of any form to jump on board and pay the very resaonble entry fee).  I appreciate the fact I'm not limited to just a couple installs for the machines I personally use (one at a time of course).

Everything went smoothly including the registration process on both apps. But.... I quit using some software (ON1 the most recent) as you must be logged in to use them. Yes it has some advantages but you have to give up on your privacy to a certain point and I hate that, it's close to spying on users. I hope that in the future I will be able to use the app and all the stuff I bought without having to be logged in. 

Hi @derei,
Can you please try View > Studio > Reset Studio, then re-enable the Constraints Studio and let me know if it's now visible?

thanks, that solved it.

Although this topic seems old, maybe someone would be interested to replicate my method (i'm using it for creating shadows):
☐ Image_to_blur ⬕ Live Filter - Gaussian Blur (HIGH value)  ⬛ Live Filter - Gaussian Blur (LOW value) Apply a gradient masking on the topmost live filter, to reveal the second blur filter applied. 


obs:
* it doesn't matter which filter is on top, as long as you apply the gradient on the topmost one and the direction of the gradient reveals the blur transition in the desired direction
* the Blur Live Filters have to be applied as children to the layer to blur, so they will only affect that one.
 
 
Attached an example of this procedure, along with the complementary layers to cast a shadow.
* for gradient blur, only the info in red boxes is relevant. The gray info is only important for shadow casting.

Hi, not sure what is your workflow, but until AF Designer has Trace Bitmap implemented, you still can benefit of this feature for free: Inkscape is free, open source vector drawing software with a rather decent and powerful Bitmap Tracing functionality.

I did not read your post as criticism and my intention was to add in a constructive way to your suggestion. Especially in regard to the DPI setting, because it would be of great help if there is some bug burried.
For me the DPI value only changes when I click on a preset itself. Not when clicking on the different sections at the top.
d.

Hi, not sure what is your workflow, but until AF Designer has Trace Bitmap implemented, you still can benefit of this feature for free: Inkscape is free, open source vector drawing software with a rather decent and powerful Bitmap Tracing functionality.

One of the most needed features in resizing the canvas is percentage! We have percentage in Guides Manager, but we don't have it when resizing things. How much is 50% from 3255? Yeah, I need a moment to figure it out too... but if we would have an option to choose percent along with mm, pixels, points and other units, that task would be performed by the computer (this is why we invented computers, i believe).
So, if there isn't too much trouble and the Affinity Development team is listening, it would be awesome if the next release has this feature.
 
Best wishes!

Stop adding features for a moment and fix the bugs instead!

The absence of bitmap tracing feature is a big minus for Designer... definitely reducing its appeal among professionals.
Even Inkscape (free/open source) has a decent bitmap tracing engine.

Hopefully Designer will have soon too.

Although this topic seems old, maybe someone would be interested to replicate my method (i'm using it for creating shadows):
☐ Image_to_blur ⬕ Live Filter - Gaussian Blur (HIGH value)  ⬛ Live Filter - Gaussian Blur (LOW value) Apply a gradient masking on the topmost live filter, to reveal the second blur filter applied. 


obs:
* it doesn't matter which filter is on top, as long as you apply the gradient on the topmost one and the direction of the gradient reveals the blur transition in the desired direction
* the Blur Live Filters have to be applied as children to the layer to blur, so they will only affect that one.
 
 
Attached an example of this procedure, along with the complementary layers to cast a shadow.
* for gradient blur, only the info in red boxes is relevant. The gray info is only important for shadow casting.

I noticed the "jaggy effect" on other types of selections, for the same reason of "selection lock on pixels" and it often requires editing of the mask, to remove this irregularity. Smoothing the selection still keeps a very "wavy" line, unless considerable smoothing is being applied, but then the selection gets affected everywhere.
So, this should be improved in a future release.
Thanks for making AF better!

done. I added your suggestion. thanks for pointing it out.

you loose all data since the last autosave due to this issue!!
 
Just got this nasty error when tried to save. Luckily I had a previous save and the file recovered automatically without too much work progress loss.
I'd like to know the cause and what possible steps to take in order to prevent it in the future.

Worth mentioning:
I am using pCloud, which creates a virtual drive on the computer and I was saving there. Could this cause any issue (the sync process could take ownership of the file temporary or, to lock it in some way)? it is the first time when it happened, although i was saving the same for many times.

I was referring specifically to the situation when Affinity can't save (due to remote disk communication issue) and it closes the document on purpose (that's not a crash, is a deliberate command). So, before closing the document, Affinity could simply make a recovery file with everything that hasn't been saved yet and then close. I really can't see what is the issue here.
But instead, as it is now, AF Photo will forcibly close the document and any unsaved edits are gone... sad, very sad.

That is the problem.
The current version, in which that feature was added, is .221.

Be careful what you wish for.  Last time I complained about something I found a horse's head on my doorstep the next morning.

Coincidence? Maybe, but Nottingham is not that far from where I live.

In the snapping settings uncheck " show snapping candidates" 

Guys, this debate became way too generic. There are two types of interruptions: short (milliseconds - seconds) and long (minutes or even permanent). Two different approaches for two different situations:
if interruption is short, that means is most probably "sleeping" and it needed a wake-up signal, or it was a short network drop, or something else. But this also means is back in no time. So, after the first failed attempt, the software should warn the user, WITHOUT CLOSING THE DOCUMENT and the user can check the connection of the drive (in explorer, for example) and then try again to save. if interruption is long or permanent (someone simply unplugged the drive, or internet is down), there isn't much to do. Obviously the document has to be closed, but maybe a better recovery system could be implemented so all tools and operations can be recovered since the last successful save on the disk. Now, as long as there isn't any "observer" or "listener" to check connection continuously, I see no reason why there would be any negative impact in performance. Just don't close the document until the user performs another attempt to save. Keep everything on stand-by and there is a very big chance that the connection will be re-established with the help of the user. I really don't see where is the issue here, conceptually speaking.

Also, having a cached copy locally would be a safety measure, a redundancy point. Yes, more space occupied on the local disk... and I see no problem with that. The storage media is meant to be used. I'd welcome a setting in Affinity to allow me to decide on which drive to create a "cached copy" of the current documents. I'd be happy to reserve ~10GB or so for that, when Affinity software is open, just to make sure my files are safe. Of course, there are issues here: what if you have Photo, Designer and Publisher open at the same time? Well, whoever wants to do graphics they usually invest in a decent machine with decent storage... there has to be a compromise anywhere.