eobet

The perspective distort and mesh warp tool are under the same button and behave very similarly.
Yet, the "apply" button for both are on the opposite extremes of the screen! (Perspective in a floating window in the bottom right, and Warp in the toolbar to the top left.)
That's a pretty extreme UI consistency break.

It's super annoying that Affinity doesn't remember what tool was last active when you switch back and forth between personas.

Why does the iPad have to have different user interface than the desktop app? It’s way worse, not intuitive at all like Procreate, and apps like Clip Studio Paint have the full deskriptiv UI on the IPad anyway and it works just fine.
I want to use the iPad version of Affinity Designer, but:
The layer options, settings and buttons panel is so much more convoluted and difficult to use on the iPad compared to the desktop.
I’m even having a difficult time changing the gradient colors on an object, because on the desktop, I just click in the fill in the appearance tab, but that menu on the iPad is so obtuse I just don’t understand how to use it.
Also, this might be obvious to some, but I cannot find the live pixel preview on the iPad.
And menus I have zero interest in, like the Assets and Symbols, cannot be dragged off and closed like on the desktop.
Currently, I’m only drawing small things on the iPad where the pen is better, and then moving to the desktop for all other things.

Compare the soft stroke on the inside, to the very harsh anti-aliasing on the outside:

I hope this will be improved in the future, because this is nearly unusable, sadly.

Replying here too, as I would also like an explicit percentage feature in the menu (and so does a lot of other people it seems, this is the fourth thread I've found on the same subject).
People shouldn't have to search online forums to find hidden features which should be made obvious through the interface.

Hi eobet,
We hope to have this fixed for v1.8. This is particularly problematic with objects with thin/small strokes (<2pt). To work around this you can scale up the object  a x factor (say x100), expand the stroke, then scale it down again the same factor. You should get a more accurate rendition without having to tweak manually. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this is causing you.

-

Not really sure what you're wanting to do. In Affinity Photo, each Adjustment Layer and Live Filter Layer have their own masks. I may be wrong, but I don't believe you can rasterize a mask.
Have a look at some of the tutorials that will help you understand Adjustment layers and masks. Go HERE and scroll down to the Filters and Adjustments section.

It's possible
Go on the channel pannel click on the mask alpha and chose an option
 
 

If you select Greyscale layer, you can edit as any pixel layer :
=>You have pixel layer as a mask  
=>right click release mask  => you have the pixel layer on the top
=>After modified Filter blur, smudge tool, eraser, or ....
=> Rasterize to mask
Or mask to below
OK ? or no  Repeat the loop until you are satisfied
 
 
 
 

For perspective:
Illustrator's "isolation mode" did not appear until CS3 (2007). If it's such a 'deal breaking, bedrock essential basic' feature (just like everyone's pet feature request is), how did anyone use Adobe Illustrator for the two prior decades?
I paid $50 for Affinity Designer. You know how much money I spent on Adobe Illustrator prior to 2007?
My use of Illustrator's Isolation Mode is only occasional. And I certainly don't judge any program that doesn't have something like it "unusable."
JET

Hi robinp,
Serif don't give etas for any specific feature (as explained several times elsewhere). There's no "prevarication" as there's no commitment with any dates (precisely to avoid even more frustration if they aren't met) among other reasons. I'm sorry if this is not enough for you but it's all I can provide.

no, from 2014... 
 

You can do this by grouping two circles and going under Layer effects and apply outline.

You can either drag guides out from the rulers or use View > Guides Manager.

Ok... but leaving layers empty isn't even acceptable for a one way trip... quite an annoying issue (with seemingly a simple fix) to have been left in for apparently almost a year now?

I also came to this forum looking for this feature. I used it a lot in Photoshop, because we export depth maps from 3D renders, so it's nice to be able to just do two clicks inside the actual render to set the range we want.

Thank you very much for the video and file. I've now reproduced this and it looks like it is being caused by the 'Snap to geometry of selected curve' option on the context toolbar. I believe it is using the zoom level settings of the smaller window you've just come out from when trying to snap, and not the one of the higher zoom. Quickly adjusting the zoom of the zoomed in part will correct it.

I'll get this passed on to development. Thanks for your perseverance! 

I would also like cryptomatte support.
We're about to test a new open source cryptomatte plugin for Photoshop at work, so it can be done:
https://www.exr-io.com/exr-io-2-00/

I don't think your answer to question 2 is correct.
I think he wants the perspective tool.
The perspective tool in Photoshop is pretty restrictive, but in Affinity, it behaves like the distort tool (which is also called "free transform" in newer versions of Photoshop).

To clarify, I mean in the Layers panel there isn't anything that's very helpful. I never would have thought to look elsewhere for this information. Over time, a person can learn to tell the difference. I can see the difference now, but when I was a new user I had no idea and was frustrated to the point of no longer using the app. And even now that I know, I often forget about the differences. And that's my point R C-R - you keep trying to justify why things work the way they do and I'm telling you it's too confusing for a lot of new users. I'm not saying they need to change the layer types but need to do more to explain the 2 types (image/pixel) because they look almost exactly the same. The fact that the online Help does not mention the layer types where it needs to (for instance, my Flood Select example) highlights the fact that Serif is only thinking from an experienced position, and not the new user or Photoshop user, and frustrated users might give up and Serif loses a customer.
P.S. side note: I also don't understand why it's called "Rasterize" in the Layers panel. This is because an image is already raster information. I think Rasterize is the wrong term. Also, after I've rasterized a layer, why is the command still available? The command should be dimmed out once I've already used it on a particular layer. I know, I know, this is a whole other topic but this all just adds to the confusion.

Same here. Saying and doing nothing makes the user believe that the program isn't working correctly.
I see zero reason why selecting a piece of an image layer for copying and pasting wouldn't work. Just rasterize the result. Deleting a piece of an image layer should just automatically create a mask with that piece masked out. That would not only do what the user expected it to do, but it will also implicitly teach the user about the difference between an image and a pixel layer (and remind an experienced user who might forget in a hurry, because the label is very small)!

Same here. Saying and doing nothing makes the user believe that the program isn't working correctly.
I see zero reason why selecting a piece of an image layer for copying and pasting wouldn't work. Just rasterize the result. Deleting a piece of an image layer should just automatically create a mask with that piece masked out. That would not only do what the user expected it to do, but it will also implicitly teach the user about the difference between an image and a pixel layer (and remind an experienced user who might forget in a hurry, because the label is very small)!

I would prefer these would happen as expected, behind the scenes, so that you could copy or cut a selection from image layer. Now, should the result be in document dpi or layer dpi? Layer dpi I would think..

I agree with summersara that something has to be done. At the very least, if a certain tool will not work with the layer in it's current form, the tool should either be not selectable or greyed out, or if you attempt to use a tool on the layer it could tell you it's not supported instead of doing NOTHING. This is what I found confusing. It does nothing, leaving you to think that it's broken.