Nazario

I just realised this myself last night. I found myself constantly changing 12pt type with default 12pt leading to 14 pt leading so the type is displayed with a semblance of how it would be set manually by a professional in the real world.
One of the first lessons you learn when you study typography is always set leading at least 2pt above the type size for legibility reasons. If you are purposely going for a style where legibility is not the priority then obviously set it accordingly. But as a default for legibility no less than 2pt. Typefaces and fonts are generally but not always designed with this in mind. 
Over compact leading leads to heavy looking boxes of type, the visual weight of which will break a design quite easily while also making type hard to read. The same is true of too wide leading. This can lead to text being read as individual lines and the story feeling broken and hard to follow as you have to consciously try harder to follow each line.
I too work similar to kanihoncho whereby you try to get a feel of the design first before you start creating styles. This is why i have an issue with how the current colour palettes work whereby its implementation requires you to set your colours first before you even start anything (as they are not added automatically) which is impossible if you are 'creating' because creating is by its very nature making something from nothing. You can't choose colours from nothing to start your project but I digress.

I just realised this myself last night. I found myself constantly changing 12pt type with default 12pt leading to 14 pt leading so the type is displayed with a semblance of how it would be set manually by a professional in the real world.
One of the first lessons you learn when you study typography is always set leading at least 2pt above the type size for legibility reasons. If you are purposely going for a style where legibility is not the priority then obviously set it accordingly. But as a default for legibility no less than 2pt. Typefaces and fonts are generally but not always designed with this in mind. 
Over compact leading leads to heavy looking boxes of type, the visual weight of which will break a design quite easily while also making type hard to read. The same is true of too wide leading. This can lead to text being read as individual lines and the story feeling broken and hard to follow as you have to consciously try harder to follow each line.
I too work similar to kanihoncho whereby you try to get a feel of the design first before you start creating styles. This is why i have an issue with how the current colour palettes work whereby its implementation requires you to set your colours first before you even start anything (as they are not added automatically) which is impossible if you are 'creating' because creating is by its very nature making something from nothing. You can't choose colours from nothing to start your project but I digress.

I just realised this myself last night. I found myself constantly changing 12pt type with default 12pt leading to 14 pt leading so the type is displayed with a semblance of how it would be set manually by a professional in the real world.
One of the first lessons you learn when you study typography is always set leading at least 2pt above the type size for legibility reasons. If you are purposely going for a style where legibility is not the priority then obviously set it accordingly. But as a default for legibility no less than 2pt. Typefaces and fonts are generally but not always designed with this in mind. 
Over compact leading leads to heavy looking boxes of type, the visual weight of which will break a design quite easily while also making type hard to read. The same is true of too wide leading. This can lead to text being read as individual lines and the story feeling broken and hard to follow as you have to consciously try harder to follow each line.
I too work similar to kanihoncho whereby you try to get a feel of the design first before you start creating styles. This is why i have an issue with how the current colour palettes work whereby its implementation requires you to set your colours first before you even start anything (as they are not added automatically) which is impossible if you are 'creating' because creating is by its very nature making something from nothing. You can't choose colours from nothing to start your project but I digress.

Not in either persona and ive reset the studio twice?! Yes its 1.8.4

It will probably require an uninstall and reinstall of the app.
Hola Marcelo, creo que tendrás que reinstalar la aplicación.

To use Publisher I need Passthrough and the render needs to be accurate as graphics need to be aligned with and overlaid the PDFs. With an image with the wrong fonts showing its impossible to achieve this and so years after purchasing Publisher I'm STILL unable to use it. It's beyond frustrating.

Here is a golden ratio template I use as a starting point for all my projects. Ive converted this to Affinity for you guys. It's a template file so double clicking will create a new document and leave the template untouched. Use it to build graphics with a little extra 'can't put my finger on it magic'.
My 'Nz' avatar is angled at a specific angle to attract the eye for example.


Golden Ratio Template.afdesign

Nearly four years after the initial post, folks are still begging for this simple feature offered by every other app in my arsenal that uses guides of any kind.  May I politely suggest that someone, somewhere within Affinity attempt a primarily pale blue project?  It's simply impossible.  Whether or not I can use AP is determined by the color of the project.  It's absurd.
 

If Passthrough is only going to show the interpreted version on screen then its going to be pretty pointless adding Passthrough (which is definitely needed). How would one align artwork with an interpreted image on screen? It would be impossible without constantly exporting, checking the output, nudging the PDF this way and that, reexporting, rechecking, move the PDF again etc.
We need to see on screen what we are working with! Whether it's a flattened preview or layered whatever, It needs to be accurate and not a preview that looks like its been captured from a camera made out of Lego.

If Passthrough is only going to show the interpreted version on screen then its going to be pretty pointless adding Passthrough (which is definitely needed). How would one align artwork with an interpreted image on screen? It would be impossible without constantly exporting, checking the output, nudging the PDF this way and that, reexporting, rechecking, move the PDF again etc.
We need to see on screen what we are working with! Whether it's a flattened preview or layered whatever, It needs to be accurate and not a preview that looks like its been captured from a camera made out of Lego.

If Passthrough is only going to show the interpreted version on screen then its going to be pretty pointless adding Passthrough (which is definitely needed). How would one align artwork with an interpreted image on screen? It would be impossible without constantly exporting, checking the output, nudging the PDF this way and that, reexporting, rechecking, move the PDF again etc.
We need to see on screen what we are working with! Whether it's a flattened preview or layered whatever, It needs to be accurate and not a preview that looks like its been captured from a camera made out of Lego.

It opened fine on my Mac. So here you go🙂
10x13-poly-mailer-template.afdesign

Here is a golden ratio template I use as a starting point for all my projects. Ive converted this to Affinity for you guys. It's a template file so double clicking will create a new document and leave the template untouched. Use it to build graphics with a little extra 'can't put my finger on it magic'.
My 'Nz' avatar is angled at a specific angle to attract the eye for example.


Golden Ratio Template.afdesign

Can you please take another look at the colour palette and swatches panel across Affinity suite. Its bugged me for a while and is very poorly implemented.
The colour palette is horrendously clunky to use and EVERY time you start a new document you need to manually create a new Document palette or else working with colour will drive you insane. A blank document palette should automatically open by default and be the current active palette. As you start working with colours they should be automatically added to the palette. So for instance if you created a new document and then created a triangle and chose a colour from the swatches panel, that colour should automatically get added to the document palette which should be independent of the swatches. At the moment as you work nothing gets added to a palette and so the so called palettes are not really palettes they are still swatches i.e. colours to choose from. A palette is a collection of colours that are in use is it not? The document palette should be independent of the various inbuilt swatches. You should be able to import colours to the document palette from the inbuilt swatches and/or any swatches that you create (from the document palette). At the moment swatches and palettes are essentially the same thing in Affinity and they should be treated separately as they work differently. A palette is colours in use. A swatch is a collection of colours to add to the palette.
Furthermore when working on a complex design, having to manually add each individual colour after previously manually creating a document palette gets very tedious. It would be much more efficient to select the item you want to recolour, create the colour in the mixer and the colour should then get added to the document palette as it is now active on the canvas. At present it only gets added to a crippled  'recents' palette. The recents palette would not be required if you use the method I describe as any colours used in the document will be present in the document palette therefore killing two birds with one stone. 
Colours should also be made drag and drop able as at present the recents bar you have to unselect any graphic elements, select a recent colour and then click 'add to palette' if you forgot to add one of the colours you used earlier. If you don't unselect the currently selected graphic element when trying to add a recent colour other than the current active one to the palette then you incorrectly colour the element and have to undo. Therefore meaning all but the last colour in the recents bar are irrelevant as you currently have to make it active again to then click add to palette. A quick drag and drop of any colour (active or not) from recents bar to the palette below would be much more intuitive and efficient.
A third idea is If you have the Colour panel open alongside the swatches panel you could also quickly create a batch of colours (albeit one at a time) and drag and drop these across to the adjacent document palette. You cant currently do that. This too would speed up working with colour no end.
Just a couple of ideas. 
 

Obviously I meant apps that treat the PDF as it was meant to be treated. i.e. honour embedded fonts etc. This was all fine until some bright spark thought 'hey lets allow editing' and other developers didn't want to be left behind on feature set. Now its just a big bag of hurt again and a new 'PDF' format is required that can't be messed with so we're back where we started sending fonts and images back and forth.
As a publisher, if a client sends you artwork you want to know for sure that the file is exactly as they intended it to look. I can open a PDF in publisher and it may look 'ok' but you have no idea that its different to what the client intended. If you send the file back to the client it will look fine for them as they have the fonts installed so they will say yes the proof looks great. You then send off the file to print and the next thing you have is a client refusing to pay because the artwork they sent is not correct.
You can't convert to paths/TIFF if the font is not honoured. Its daft that you need Acrobat to do it which means you still have a subscription with Adobe and so you may as well stick with Adobe.
 

You need to figure out who you are selling to and why they would want to buy what you are creating. Does it serve a purpose or is I art? I cant figure out what the graphics are above. Are they informational because if so they are the message is not clear. If it is simply an art piece I personally would not be interested.
If you are learning and wanting to become a graphic designer then google everything about graphic design. Look at famous logos and read the many texts written about why they work. Find out about typography (type design), editorial layout (magazines) , informational graphics (signage), web design, app design etc.
Affinity and Photoshop etc are just tools. They won't make you a good designer they just help you create your vision. Knowing how to use your tools will make things easier not better. Knowledge makes your work better.
If you want to master Affinity find some graphic that you like and try to recreate it. This will give you some boundaries (i.e. it needs to look like this) and will, if needs be, force you to investigate the tools a little more in depth to get things looking correctly. Its a bit more of a challenge than creating your own work and helps you learn your tools faster. Tutorial videos help too.
 

Why are you trying to learn every program known to man? Figure out what you want to achieve and use the appropriate tool. If its graphics and logo design use Designer. If its image manipulation use Photo. If its layout design use Publisher.

You need to figure out who you are selling to and why they would want to buy what you are creating. Does it serve a purpose or is I art? I cant figure out what the graphics are above. Are they informational because if so they are the message is not clear. If it is simply an art piece I personally would not be interested.
If you are learning and wanting to become a graphic designer then google everything about graphic design. Look at famous logos and read the many texts written about why they work. Find out about typography (type design), editorial layout (magazines) , informational graphics (signage), web design, app design etc.
Affinity and Photoshop etc are just tools. They won't make you a good designer they just help you create your vision. Knowing how to use your tools will make things easier not better. Knowledge makes your work better.
If you want to master Affinity find some graphic that you like and try to recreate it. This will give you some boundaries (i.e. it needs to look like this) and will, if needs be, force you to investigate the tools a little more in depth to get things looking correctly. Its a bit more of a challenge than creating your own work and helps you learn your tools faster. Tutorial videos help too.
 

You need to figure out who you are selling to and why they would want to buy what you are creating. Does it serve a purpose or is I art? I cant figure out what the graphics are above. Are they informational because if so they are the message is not clear. If it is simply an art piece I personally would not be interested.
If you are learning and wanting to become a graphic designer then google everything about graphic design. Look at famous logos and read the many texts written about why they work. Find out about typography (type design), editorial layout (magazines) , informational graphics (signage), web design, app design etc.
Affinity and Photoshop etc are just tools. They won't make you a good designer they just help you create your vision. Knowing how to use your tools will make things easier not better. Knowledge makes your work better.
If you want to master Affinity find some graphic that you like and try to recreate it. This will give you some boundaries (i.e. it needs to look like this) and will, if needs be, force you to investigate the tools a little more in depth to get things looking correctly. Its a bit more of a challenge than creating your own work and helps you learn your tools faster. Tutorial videos help too.
 

I too would like larger Quicklook previews from Affinity Suite in MacOS. Currently they are too small to accurately determine content within and lead to loading up the full file.

I can't get it to reproduce on another resolution. If it ever does I'll report back here. Think it's just 5120x2880. FYI its a 5K iMac I use but the resolution is set to default which "looks like 2560x1440". Maybe something there to look at?

Nailed it. Think it might be due to the fact one layer is 'pixel' and one is 'image'. It doesn't always do it but I have yet to see it happen when both layers are rasterised. I work quick so what I did in the video is open an image. Open a document preset. Copy and paste image into new preset doc. Drag and drop second image (without rasterising) into doc then export as jpeg using shortcut. The result in 50% of cases is corrupt icon preview. If I move the icon to a new folder for example the preview seems to get fixed. It's not a massive issue just a little inconvenience.
Jpeg result also attached.

icon_preview_corrupt.mov

I'll see what I can do. All I have to do is move the file to another location and the preview fixes itself. Maybe its a Finder issue but it only seems to do it with JPEGs from AffinityPhoto so maybe not?!

Obviously I meant apps that treat the PDF as it was meant to be treated. i.e. honour embedded fonts etc. This was all fine until some bright spark thought 'hey lets allow editing' and other developers didn't want to be left behind on feature set. Now its just a big bag of hurt again and a new 'PDF' format is required that can't be messed with so we're back where we started sending fonts and images back and forth.
As a publisher, if a client sends you artwork you want to know for sure that the file is exactly as they intended it to look. I can open a PDF in publisher and it may look 'ok' but you have no idea that its different to what the client intended. If you send the file back to the client it will look fine for them as they have the fonts installed so they will say yes the proof looks great. You then send off the file to print and the next thing you have is a client refusing to pay because the artwork they sent is not correct.
You can't convert to paths/TIFF if the font is not honoured. Its daft that you need Acrobat to do it which means you still have a subscription with Adobe and so you may as well stick with Adobe.
 

Obviously I meant apps that treat the PDF as it was meant to be treated. i.e. honour embedded fonts etc. This was all fine until some bright spark thought 'hey lets allow editing' and other developers didn't want to be left behind on feature set. Now its just a big bag of hurt again and a new 'PDF' format is required that can't be messed with so we're back where we started sending fonts and images back and forth.
As a publisher, if a client sends you artwork you want to know for sure that the file is exactly as they intended it to look. I can open a PDF in publisher and it may look 'ok' but you have no idea that its different to what the client intended. If you send the file back to the client it will look fine for them as they have the fonts installed so they will say yes the proof looks great. You then send off the file to print and the next thing you have is a client refusing to pay because the artwork they sent is not correct.
You can't convert to paths/TIFF if the font is not honoured. Its daft that you need Acrobat to do it which means you still have a subscription with Adobe and so you may as well stick with Adobe.