GalaxySurfer

Update to this: Not only is there JPEG XL export in V2, but what wasn't announced, and I was surprised to see, was webp as an export option.

i've abandoned Affinity Photo for PixelmatorPro, just for WebP export feature.
it's sad because it's an easy feature, now a standard for all current and next web dev (images are 50% smaller than jpg and png!) and it wouldn't cost too much to say: sure it'll come with 1.11 be patient!
 

Attached video preview, just created new file with 2 artboards, inserted photo (not rasterized; later tried to rasterize it — no difference).
Invert selection effect in Affinity is random, this time inverted selection didn't appear at all.
I'm on Mac, but I see it's broken in both versions.
Screen Recording 2023-01-04 at 12.01.16.mov

As per THIS POST, the issue appears to occur when using an Affinity Designer document that has artboards.
Steps to reproduce:

Artboard.mp4  
File:
untitled.afphoto
 

That's great Dan! Again awesome you and N.P.M. replied so quickly. Have a nice day 😃

Have you tried using the new (in V2) X-Ray mode of wireframe view? That shows all objects as slightly transparent (including image / pixel layers)

Of course, no problem at all!
Unfortunately there's no option to change the transparency level for this mode currently, but I can certainly see how this could benefit your workflow - so I'll be sure to request this as a future improvement with our devs for you now

Of course, and thanks for your help.
 

Hey there!
I was trying to make the Twitter logo with the new Shape Builder tool to kinda "learn" this tool. As a long-time Affinity user I'm not all that familiar with it of course.
I quickly found that that in my opinion it's the easiest to work with it while using the Wireframe mode. However, it makes the image a square outline of (obviously).
I'd like to make a suggestion where you can disable Wireframe affecting images. This way, it would be way easier to use Wireframe in such instances.

This is definitely possible - it's what I resorted to at the end. However, there's no outline then. I can easily add a stroke to it but for larger projects I think adding a stroke + shape with low opacity fill would cost more performance compared to using the Wireframe mode - even when they'd look quite same. Using Wireframe is also easier if you want to add colours to the shapes when working on a shape. If you also have a stroke then, it takes a bit more time to change the colour

Actually it's the setting I miss most since I'm coming from Photoshop.
It's pretty impossible to generate a pressure sensitive brush for smooth transitions that works in solid colors like blue sky oder studio paper backgrounds.

As someone who would like/is attempting to use AP2 for digital painting, this feature is a must. It blows my mind it hasn't been added, there's posts from 2017 complaining about this. I've seen a few other posts from forums for some workarounds, but its still just not the same...
Workaround (if curious)->
Set Accumulation Jitter to Pressure and 40-50%
Set Flow Jitter to Pressure and 100%
Set Luminosity Jitter to Pressure and 4-10%
 
I would also like to be able to see the text names of my brushes without having to hover my mouse to see what the brush name is. 
 
Thanks,

adding  pressure opacity control, this will make working with affinity photo way easier. i tries messing with the accumulation and flow control but it doesn't give me the affect i want.
making accumulation pressure control is not ideal since with low pressure because the accumulation is low i can see clear circles from the brush (doesn't blend well) especially with soft brushes (very critical for my work).
setting flow to pressure control will give similar affect to opacity control, but it isn't opacity control. coming from Photoshop i switch between opacity control brushes and opacity and flow control brushes so i know that there is a  clear difference between them. and the  fact that i cant use opacity and flow control brushes is slowing my workflow which make using this app very hard for me. in addition setting flow control to pressure sensitivity means that when i want to go back with the brush in the same stroke on something that i coloured (photo editing) the colour gets darker, that is not what i want from an opacity brush, i want to get an even colour.
also a welcome addition is more control over the hardness. when setting a brush at 0% hardness you don't get a soft brush like Photoshop and other softwares, the 0% hardness brush in AF the transition/blending between the brush and the background is too sharp (it is more like a glow affect). it would be nice if i can control the transition so i can make it look more soft without playing with flow control, because as i said Earler setting flow control to pressure sensitivity means that when i want to go back with the brush in the same stroke the colour gets darker.
 

Changing the brush properties in context toolbar, clicking More and saving it as a Duplicate seems to keep them including Opacity but it's not possible to save them to the existing brush. Is that what you did?

How would you suggest this new feature should work if, for example, someone selects on of the Acrylics presets, clicks the "More" button on the context toolbar, & changes any of the several dozen brush options available there? The results could be a brush with very different painting properties than the preset they started with.
Likewise, at least on Macs it is also possible to change the width, spacing, hardness, rotation, & shape without having to open the "More" dialog by holding down the CTRL & Option keys & clicking on the canvas to cycle through these options, also resulting in very different painting properties from those of the preset.
So basically, while it should be possible to simply keep the last selected brush preset highlighted until another brush preset is selected, it won't necessarily tell you much if anything about what the next paint stroke will look like.

And it's not viewed by Serif as a bug, as far as I know. It's just the way the program was designed to work. It would be nice to see an improvement, though.

I agree, when changing the size of a brush it's still the same brush, at least for the user, no matter what the app is thinking. And every other design and art app out there presents it in the same way.
Speaking of changing brush sizes, another of those low hanging fruits would be a brush size panel. Sometimes that just seems faster than using the size adjuster already in the app or using the dial on my pen tablet. It's an easy feature and it's pretty standard in competing software. 
Also adding the brush name in the history panel. Instead of "Paint Brush Tool" it would be something like "Paint Brush Tool: Chalky Brush 1" or something. Clip Studio Paint has that feature and it's great for remembering what brush you just tested out 3 brushes ago and want to go back to.
Just those 4 really easy features to add would enhance my experience with the program so much. Displaying the brush names in the brush panel on desktop, keeping the selected brush highlighted even when changing sizes, a brush size panel with different brush sizes already all laid out, and the brush name in the history panel. Super easy to add, super standard in design and art programs. And such a huge improvement to the brush experience. All without even touching the underlying brush engine. They're quick additions that add a ton of value. 

and it would also be really useful if (in all apps on desktop as well):
A: the selected brush in the list stayed highlighted as long as it is being used and
B: there was a reset button to go back to the brushes original settings.

At the moment I create a brush set for every project.
Hopefully I don't forget any..
;-)

I'm really loving the Affinity Suite, they are fantastic products. But it's become frustrating that my biggest pain point with the desktop software is seemingly something so easy to fix. I'm talking about how you can only see the brush names in the brush panel by hovering your cursor over the brush. For someone who has bought a lot of brushes for the software this is really painful. This has really hampered my ability to find a brush, or even remember what brush I had used previously. It seems like a small thing, but it really isn't. Seeing the names in the panel helps greatly with memory retention and creates a much stronger user experience. Right now I either have to hover over the brush, taking an extra second to let the name pop up (getting me out of my artistic flow and annoying me, and that annoyance meaning I'm unlikely to bother), or I have to not register the name in my consciousness at all, leaving me to hopefully remember later which in a long line of squiggly shapes is the brush I used.
While I realize this isn't the most important feature in the world, it's also really low hanging fruit. And doesn't the ipad versions of the suite already have this (I don't have the ipad versions but I'd swear I saw in a video that they do)?
Is this a result of someone in UI wanting to make the panel look prettier and more streamlined and thinking it doesn't hamper our workflows? Because if so please, please put that strange notion aside. You are most definitely hampering my workflow. 
Please don't tell me we have to wait for 1.9 for this. It's such a small thing but so important. 
 

Unfortunately, Affinity's boolean engine rears it's ugly head once again.
While I appreciate the effort, and the rest of the video, the method on the big shape leaves (at least when I did it) TEN extra nodes.... including a fully independent extra shape within the object. (all three nodes of the little triangle were on top of the top left corner)

For speed and accuracy I much prefer this method.... Faster and only () one extra node at one of the break points after recombining..... yet another recurring boolean problem, but at least it's just one . If ur unlucky maybe two.

(EDIT: if you try this on your own, please note that the original object was not closed. So I just hit that button first)
 

Made a video for you @Irfaan 
https://youtu.be/C-YBmY2PpRk
 

For me the fact that there are two types of text possibilities, with different characteristics, already implies it important to be able switch between them now and again. So I don't understand the people who keep asking why you would need it, especially knowing so well the differences. You start off with the one tool and at one moment you find out you'll need the other. An example of my own need right now: duplicated a frame text layer and after some steps I transformed it into a header. In order to play with the words, breaks/amount of lines, and aligment art text would've been much handier and handson to experiment with, not needing to reshape the bounding box all the time. Now I can make a new art text, which I just did, and apply the same markup, but this is extra work if I could've just switched.

For me the fact that there are two types of text possibilities, with different characteristics, already implies it important to be able switch between them now and again. So I don't understand the people who keep asking why you would need it, especially knowing so well the differences. You start off with the one tool and at one moment you find out you'll need the other. An example of my own need right now: duplicated a frame text layer and after some steps I transformed it into a header. In order to play with the words, breaks/amount of lines, and aligment art text would've been much handier and handson to experiment with, not needing to reshape the bounding box all the time. Now I can make a new art text, which I just did, and apply the same markup, but this is extra work if I could've just switched.

The differences are the reasons. I often need one functionality that exists only in one tool, and sometimes the reverse. This occurs too commonly when using Affinity. It has been a basic feature in Adobe for many years. My purpose here has been to express support for the feature request, not to be suggested I should be satisfied using one tool instead of the other, thank you.