MauricioC

I agree, I'm working on a document which is over 150 pages, clicking and dragging is not an ideal solution imagine dragging 7 pages from page 125 to page 3, there should be a way to just select "move after x page " or "move after x page" dialog, I'd like to see this feature and perhaps testing the software with large projects in mind. 

It isn't arbitrary -- @Callum explained the logic behind the swap. But it does make an assumption about how users most often use the Flood Fill Tool in combination with the other tools, which is true only for certain workflows.
With that in mind, I think it would be useful to add a "sticky" setting to that tool's context toolbar, perhaps named simply "Swap," with a checkmark that if unticked would not automatically do the swap.
Do you think it is worth making a feature request for that?

I always like when software does the minimal number of things to carry out each task. Swapping foreground/background colors seems to me an arbitrary extra step. On top of the problems described above, it's really confusing when I use the color picker, then the next tool isn't using that color I just picked.

But for the Paint Brush & Fill tools there is no stroke color, just Primary & Secondary colors. So say I have a pixel layer I have painted with various colors, two of which are a mustard yellow & a lime green. They are currently the primary & secondary colors, respectively.
Then I switch to the Fill Tool because I want to fill some color region with the same mustard yellow I was just moments ago painting with, not with the  lime green that switching to the Fill Tool causes. I consider this as no less normal than any other workflow switch between those two tools.

How could the app possibly be programed to know how I would normally use the Paint Brush Tool vs. the Fill Tool? As often as not, I want to paint on a layer with a brush, create a marching ants selection (or reselect the previously created one), & then fill that selection with the brush color.

THIS has been asked for since 2014….as others have pointed out, if I may paraphrase ….
It is incomprehensible and disingenuous AT BEST… to suggest this is NOT one of the TOP requests coming from those using or /continually forced to use ILLUSTRATOR BECAUSE OF THIS MISSING FEATURE.
I would venture to say in my peer group 100% of them have needed, used, or would use this feature. It’s a no brainer.
OK …I get it…. that “you” claim that it will not be released until “you” are satisfied…..but maybe many if not most of us would be happy with a product that was 75-80%  “there”….. and willing to accept a caveat that this function is available  “as a work in progress”.
Is it really true that AFTER 8+ YEARS your engineers/designers do NOT have a viable working option? After ALL of the AMAZING improvements that have evolved in this timeframe?…on all of the suite?
BS.
…when SO MANY other viable work arounds from lesser companies abound?
BS.
I (we) LOVE the Affinity family…but this ONE THING borders on INSULT.

I remember asking a few times every year or so apart about auto trace & got the same 'we are looking at X to make sure'. been a user since the very beginning in the beta stages. really disappointed it still is not a feature
I know many will say 'oh its not a feature everyone uses', blah blah bloody blah.
but thats such a shite deflective argument, since there are many features users dont use within the software, but its still feature
PLEASE SERIF, PUT IN AUTO TRACE!!!
it is highly important & helpful for artists that draw on paper & want to transfer & would rather not go from one software to the other.
if a free piece of software can do it, you can
PLEASE SERIF, PUT IN AUTO TRACE!!!
even if its not 100% & I needed to do a bit of editing, id be happy, since updates can tweak out the bugs & make it better thru updates, id be fine with that.
as long as I knew that I could have auto trace & not go from one software for one specific feature, to then bring into designer. I would be super happy.
PLEASE SERIF, PUT IN AUTO TRACE!!!
also thru having it in & it may be buggy, you at least will have people to report back saying 'oh this is a wee bit off, here is my file to test out & I have a screencast to show what's gone wrong'. that helps.
again, having it & working on it is better than completely ignoring it & sending others away because you choose to not talk or say anything about it.
user retention is the key & talking about it openly is helpful to yourself & the community
PLEASE SERIF, PUT IN AUTO TRACE!!!

Is vectorize raster graphic not included?

And they call it a solution for PROFESSIONAL layout design. This is a workaround, but it's not how professionals should have to work because of bad software. I've dumped Affinity for now until this is resolved and instead am using Clip Studio which takes 1/10th of the Ram for the same size files. 

Sorry, but the math does not add up. I'm having a similar problem. The file in question is 21 mb on disk, exported it's around 300 mb, but it is using 10GB of memory or put another way, 10,000 MB RAM for a document that is a fraction of that and I'm not counting the disk space it is using.
The same thing was happening with the latest release (at the time) of Affinity Photo AND Designer until I reverted to an earlier release. This worked for months until this week I noticed it doing the same. A simple file of 80MB or so will take 8,000MB of RAM. This is not beta software, I've brought this up in the forums before as well as many other people, and I never seem to find an answer. 
I've used Adobe CC, Medibang, Krita, Gimp, Inkscape, DAZ 3d, Sketchup and more on this same system and have never experienced this sort of lag time. I don't think it is a question of our files, but of how Affinity is handling data and how it is holding it in memory. Long after I shut down the programs, the memory stays in use. I still cannot recommend any of your software to my students, but look forward to a day when there is a viable option. 

I agree, if I have multiple items selected, text frame should scale like everything else.

I have more information on this. (I'm the same person who reported it originally, I'm having email trouble.)
Using a large file with MANY images in it, Publisher is consuming about 750MB "at idle." When I load the file, it goes up to about 1.7GB - that's to be expected. If I then scroll through the book, I can see the memory footprint get bigger and bigger as I cross more pages. On my 40MB desktop system, it was not really a problem to use 33GB. However, scrolling through 55 pages on my 16GB MacBook Pro DEFINITELY IS A PROBLEM as it blows out Publisher's footprint to around 17-18GB. That of course is 10 pounds in a five pound sack, so there's flour all over the floor.
If I close the file, memory footprint goes back to about 750-800MB within a few seconds. If I then load the file again and scroll, it repeats the behavior. For grins I loaded the file and then let it sit and do nothing. Of course, the footprint stays static in that case. This behavior is entirely repeatable or at least it was whilst I was on the plane this afternoon. If I let this continue, it will eventually lead to lots of spinning beachballs (that's how I noticed). I've been working around it by frequently saving, closing and reopening. Rather than scrolling to the work site within the book, I Document->Goto Page which seems to avoid the problem. This of course is only a workaround and it's only as good as long as I refrain from scrolling, which as you can imagine is not easy.
This system is a Macbook Pro 14,2 with 16GB memory. It too is running Mojave.

The file is 1.7GB in size before save as and 1.62GB in size after. Not materially different, I'd say.
> Are you on a Mac?
I did post this in the "beta on Mac" forum, but yes I'm on an iMac 17,1 with 40GB memory.
> For speed (and other)  reasons Affinity files are quite heavy
I get it. I did say - in my original note: "the system was definitely behaving and if that's normal, so be it."
> Why RAM is there to use it. Otherwise it isn’t necessary.
I know that. I've worked on Unix VM systems - professionally - so I have a fairly decent idea of what's going on. I neglected to mention that without the large Publisher footprint, the rest of my system readily grows to ~28-30 GB. So Publisher probably is displacing pages that would be productively going to other uses, albeit perhaps at lower priority. MacOS didn't go off and compress a bunch of stuff, so it would seem that the memory pressure is light, but present.

I just noticed that Publisher had sucked down a full 33GB of memory - I have a 40G system. I only noticed because some of the stats on the system seemed to be going kind of nuts. The system was definitely behaving and if that's normal, so be it. My main project has MANY images, mostly large ones, so it's not 100% surprising to eat a lot of RAM. But 33G is a lot...
Quitting and reloading the same file yields a memory footprint of slightly under 4GB, so I'd say it's virtually certain that something was leaking memory within the process. Judging by the magnitude and what I've been doing with the program, I'd guess it would have to be related to images. Anything I can do to better identify this?

No worries, Dan.
In the attatched ZIP, there is an APub file that has an rgb image with a build equaling about 260% TAC if exported to the default pdf/x-4 profile. It also has a rasterized vector object made from registration black, so 100% all cmyk. When exported as a pdf, I'm using SWOP, those numbers come through as-is.
untitled.pdf in the zip demonstrates the above.
In the zip, there is a common 240 TAC icc profile that is found on the web. Install it.
untitled2.pdf demonstrates the effect of using the above profile. You can use the profile with the APub file in the zip as the document profile or at time of pdf export. Doesn't matter.
untitled.zip

A designer specializing in layout work who doesn't know or care about separations is an expensive accident waiting to happen. Black RGB text that prints blurry, or black text at 7pt that's not set to overprint, or images with an RGB black background which auto-separates into rich black that are placed inside a CMYK K-only black rectangle in the hope of it looking seamless – the client is not going to be happy.
I routinely check anything that goes to print in separations preview, and one out of three times, I spot a last-minute problem that needs to be fixed. Partly this is because of idiosyncrasies of InDesign's quirky transparency flattener, but still, it's an important step in any software that helps you prevent costly situations like re-printing 500 000 copies of a document because you missed a very small but very stupid problem.
While in my opinion not absolutely essential for a 1.0 release (a software like Acrobat can be used to check the PDFs if need be), it's definitely far from just a "nice to have" feature.

I know this is a beta, but these points are very important for a professional workflow. I can use Word for layouts, if these features are not included. But I thought I have missed them. It is okay, if i know they will come later. So we can check the functionality that is available now.

PDF to fixed layout probably works well, but PDF to reflowable epub is something that usually takes days of work to fix and requires some understanding of HTML.

Wait: you embarked on a full publishing project in Affinity Publisher and did not check whether epub export is possible before doing so? And you knew in advance epub export is required (Ingram Spark clearly states what is required for upload)? How could you NOT check for epub export?
Anyway, there is perhaps a solution.
1) use a conversion service such as magicepub.
Free to register and try the service. It will watermark images, but at least you can try the service before paying for the conversion (which is a couple of euros per conversion).
But this service merely converts either all pages to images, or embedded SVG files. I found the img + text conversion to be lacking, and it will need manual intervention.
So, since a service like magicepub needs to convert your complex layouts to either flattened images or SVG, why not do it yourself?
2) convert all your pages to SVG, and use an epub editor like Sigil to create a epub3 fixed layout file. Place each SVG on its own page. Save the epub.
Or if you want to publish on Amazon, export as PDF, and then use Kindle Creator to create the KPF file. Creator includes a TOC, and converts the entire thing to SVG as well.
The advantage of SVG is that text and vectors will be rendered at high quality. Converting the entire page to a JPG obviously results in a fuzzy looking text, and is probably something you want to avoid. PNG works much better, but may blow up the file to unacceptable file sizes.
There are many online PDF to epub convertors online, although the quality of conversion varies. I prefer to keep the conversion process under full manual control, so generally for complex fixed layouts I will use SVGs and place those in Sigil. 
 

Gosh! I believe I'm getting too old to find enough patience to run around fiddling for things... I'll better give up, and wait till a developer pools out a user friendly interfaced solution out of some magic hat.
Sorry for the bother... 

Sorry Dave - as regards ePub export ‘the coming years’ just doesn’t cut it - if you’re going to be a credible alternative to InDesign this has to be a basic feature of Publisher - be under no illusion - ePub Export and InDesign Import are deal breakers.

Totally agree. I cannot teach with Affinity as this is just a non-starter. I don't know how important it it for photography, but for art and design (especially comcis) it is crucial.
Just a tiny example- coloring
Select area- click lasso tool, it doesn't work with a tablet, why? Oh polygonal is not selected. 
-Select polygonal.
Start selection, add to selection, doh! It defaulted to New
-Select Add
Sample color to fill selection
-click paintbucket
It's selected gradient fill for some reason, 
-click until you get the paintbucket
Fill the area, woah, it filled more than the solid color I clicked on
-adjust tolerance to 2 or 0 instead of the default of 20
Fill the selection
Switch to lasso- what? Everything has been reset to default. 
How am I supposed to give these instructions to students? Answer, I can't. If it doesn't work, they go to some freebie software on their phone and their work looks lousy.
The end.

Yeah, and I kinda hate to say it, but every time I try using Affinity Serif software I keep on getting just enough little UI papercuts that keep me going back to Adobe products. I really want to love Affinity Photo but I just can't handle all of the little issues that keep on cropping up, and it's especially annoying to post about these to try to see about workarounds or other ways of doing what I'm trying to do only to see people on this forum being all, "That's how this software is, deal with it."
Like I mean, I get that this is a different piece of software and the developers' focus isn't necessarily going to be on the same things that I'm expecting out of it, but I still want to use tools to get stuff done. I am totally willing to learn a different way of doing things, but everything that isn't Photoshop seems to require you to take a dozen extra steps to do a thing that was just 1-2 clicks in Photoshop, and those 1-2 click things are what I've built my entire art workflow around.
If there were alternate approaches that weren't so cumbersome I'd just learn those alternate approaches, but as far as I can tell, Affinity (and many of the other would-be Photoshop competitors like Acorn and Pixelmator) just plain don't see those things as priorities.
I feel silly for having spent money on this software without thoroughly trying to see if I could do things in it. I figured that buying it would show my support for it and do my small part to finance its improvement, but when I try to give my feelings on how it could become the amazing piece of software that it has the potential to be, it's met with snark and attitude from other users and a deafening silence from the developers. How am I supposed to just keep on holding out hope that it will improve for my needs, given that?
Anyway. I'm sorry to rant. I'm just getting frustrated with having to pay $$$ every year to keep Photoshop working, when it's not like I'm even using any of the new features they keep adding (but good luck getting the final non-subscription version installed/working/etc. on a current-gen Mac...)

Is it planned to store the last settings of the tools so that for the next session you will be able to work with your configurated tools?
It is allways annoying having to  reset the tools to your preference.

Know you guys are busy but it's been 2+  years since this thread was started...  :(
 
Please don't send this to the bottom of the pile....