chessboard

Now, this works. But would you say, that it is logical to need two times the same colour (i.e. the same CMYK percentages) to have it one time with overprint and another time not overprinting? Say you want to have magenta to be not overprinting in general, but one shape with the colour magenta should overprint (a yellow shape to get a nice red). Therefore you need to set up a second mangenta colour with overprinting turned on. Mm 🤔, not sure if this is really a logic workflow, because after all it's still the same ink and still ends up on the same color separation.
I would say, that overprinting is rather shape based and should be adjusted for shapes, because it determines if a shape is part of a specific separation plate or not.
This is something that can be found throughout the Affinity programs - breaking with traditional workflows for... - well, what for? Just to be different?

Now, this works. But would you say, that it is logical to need two times the same colour (i.e. the same CMYK percentages) to have it one time with overprint and another time not overprinting? Say you want to have magenta to be not overprinting in general, but one shape with the colour magenta should overprint (a yellow shape to get a nice red). Therefore you need to set up a second mangenta colour with overprinting turned on. Mm 🤔, not sure if this is really a logic workflow, because after all it's still the same ink and still ends up on the same color separation.
I would say, that overprinting is rather shape based and should be adjusted for shapes, because it determines if a shape is part of a specific separation plate or not.
This is something that can be found throughout the Affinity programs - breaking with traditional workflows for... - well, what for? Just to be different?

@Serigrafique 
I knew the responses would be exactly like the ones above. A perfect example of Parkinson's bicycle-shed effect.
I'm more curious about what's really interesting in this feedback:
It is important, to say the least.

Super excited when I got an email about V2 and even downloaded the free trials, but after looking at the lack of added features, it's a big pass. I'll wait for V3 or V6 or V9, what ever it takes to make this software compatible with the printing industry (Almost 1 Trillion Dollar (US$) industry worldwide).
There is still no support for overprint fills and strokes for ink trapping and color mixing, spot or CMYK color separations, non-printable layers for die cut rules or digital finishing equipment. Let's not even mention the still clunky interface. It's not workflow, it's work stoppage. Need to pull down menus to change stroke weights and type sizes, really???
I have worked in the graphic arts industry for over 40 years from paste up and film to digital prepress and digital printing, and every major graphic software package since the original Pagemaker. I know a thing or two about the industry. The reason professionals use Adobe products is because they support this kind of work. Our designers and prepress technicians agree that Affinity files are challenging to work with, and the only thing worse is Canva crap. We charge extra for such files because of the time it takes to make them work with our equipment.
Bottom line is if your like me and don't want to pay for subscription software, be prepared to pay for it on the back end.

@tatanka
I just tried this in Publisher V2. Admittedly in a very simple way, but it's all about principle.
I made a one page document in Publisher with CMYK/8 profile. Drew a shape and set the fill colour to CMYK 0/0/0/100. I then exported this as PDF with "rasterize: nothing", colour space: CMYK and colour profile as in document (ISO coated v2 300% ECI).
I than checked the PDF in Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop and there the black shape is still at CMYK 0/0/0/100. The colour separations in Photoshop show colour only for black channel.
Perhaps you should check Publisher again.

Hi @chessboard,
I've been able to replicate this issue with locked pixel layers and it has now been logged with the developers for resolution.
I was also able to replicate this behaviour in V1, however in both versions it seemingly only affects pixel layers.

That's no problem. Apart from photos, which can use a lot of memory (that starts with using 16bit channels), you can do all kind of print documents in an image editing software. I for example do puzzle illustrations in Photoshop. With A3-Size in at least 300dpi, perhaps CMYK-Mode (I use RGB as long as possible), lots and lots of layers the memory requirements can also get very high. Since clients tend to change their minds about some things, it's always good advise to not flatten layers until the work is really done.

😳
Holy disastrous dialogue derailment Batman! Does Affinity need a Meta forum for this kind of thing?
I'm the one who triggered this whole thing with my offensive use of the word 'pr*fessionals', so let me be the one to try and end it. Who cares what happened on other threads with other forum members? On this thread, I used the word, and when brought to task over it, I explained exactly what I meant by it. And I stand by that. Now, you're free to agree or disagree with the point I was making, but let's play the ball and not the man. Many have commented that our society has largely lost the skill of respectfully disagreeing with one another, and forums like this one seem to prove the point.
Now, to those who resent the very existence of this thread, because I dared to complain about software which only cost me A$159… In my original post, I said:
 
For those who are still offended, let me spell it out. It's not about the price. The price is great. So, you get what you pay for? Yes. So, that denies me the right to express any disappointment over this V2 release? No. I am disappointed because the software is clearly positioned as a competitor to Adobe's Creative Cloud software. As others have pointed out, Affinity uses the word 'pr*fessional' in their own marketing! Go take a look—it's the first effing word on their home page!! Oh but that's just marketing hyperbole right? We all know not to trust marketing, right? Well here's a thought… If you want to take someone to task over their use of the word 'pr*fessional', why don't you start with Affinity? If you think it's marketing bullsh*t, why not hold them accountable?! Why take it out on me when I simply come here to express my personal disappointment that the experience doesn't match the hype?
I've been pretty patient on this thread up 'till now (even when the first two comments tried to shut down the discussion before it even began). But the way some people make things personal (even getting precious and defensive on Affinity's behalf), is reminding me why I tend to avoid the Apple forums—so many precious Apple users who take unofficial residence outside the glass walls and guard their turf ferociously. I have better things to do with my time—and so do you I suspect.

Well, without doubt there are "professional needs". I understand this to mean, among other things, speed, reliability even on a very large scale, precision, and the ability to streamline and automate workflows. However, the existence of special professional needs does not diminish the needs of users who do not use the software for a living, but may be even the same in some parts. I don't know who said otherwise (I don't read or know each comment in this forum).
Professional or not says nothing about the quality of work that is done with the software nor the users themselves. So no need to feel personally attacked when the term "professional" is used.

I would really appreciate it if we could just discuss the software here and no one had to discuss themselves, feel offended by the wishes of others, or be allergic to the term "professional". This forum is about software and not about the personality of individual users, not about belief and not about the bad guys versus the good guys (may it be users or companies, especially in relation to another software provider that starts with a capital "A").

I would really appreciate it if we could just discuss the software here and no one had to discuss themselves, feel offended by the wishes of others, or be allergic to the term "professional". This forum is about software and not about the personality of individual users, not about belief and not about the bad guys versus the good guys (may it be users or companies, especially in relation to another software provider that starts with a capital "A").

Well, without doubt there are "professional needs". I understand this to mean, among other things, speed, reliability even on a very large scale, precision, and the ability to streamline and automate workflows. However, the existence of special professional needs does not diminish the needs of users who do not use the software for a living, but may be even the same in some parts. I don't know who said otherwise (I don't read or know each comment in this forum).
Professional or not says nothing about the quality of work that is done with the software nor the users themselves. So no need to feel personally attacked when the term "professional" is used.

Why not just ignore them who take themselves and their needs too seriously? I don't think Serif values their requirements more highly just because they call themselves professionals. I hardly think Serif actually keeps a list of user requests here from the forum. At least they have ignored most of them in the past years. It is still a big mystery what Serif plans to do with its suite and what suggestions and needs they will take into account. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant whether some users consider their needs to be more important than those of other users. JM2C.

Why not just ignore them who take themselves and their needs too seriously? I don't think Serif values their requirements more highly just because they call themselves professionals. I hardly think Serif actually keeps a list of user requests here from the forum. At least they have ignored most of them in the past years. It is still a big mystery what Serif plans to do with its suite and what suggestions and needs they will take into account. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant whether some users consider their needs to be more important than those of other users. JM2C.

Well, without doubt there are "professional needs". I understand this to mean, among other things, speed, reliability even on a very large scale, precision, and the ability to streamline and automate workflows. However, the existence of special professional needs does not diminish the needs of users who do not use the software for a living, but may be even the same in some parts. I don't know who said otherwise (I don't read or know each comment in this forum).
Professional or not says nothing about the quality of work that is done with the software nor the users themselves. So no need to feel personally attacked when the term "professional" is used.

Real professionals don't whine all the time on discussion forums. They make suggestions and work using other tools if the ones they have don't fulfill their needs.
They usually don't cry for $50.

That is ineffective symptom management. It is not individual ad hoc symptom management that he wants. He is asking for a factual and tribal warfare free debate environment.

Yes, because technically, it's only one app in three different incarnations, each of them having certain features disabled. That's why the "one document format" works.
It's been confirmed by staff multiple times that the major changes between v1 and v2 were under the hood – i.e. the underlying code – so that they required a change to the document format as well. That's highly unfortunate and annoying – for me as well – but sometimes inevitable.
And that's nothing new in software development, and usually it has not much to do with "marketing", rather then with implementing new technologies.

I would really appreciate it if we could just discuss the software here and no one had to discuss themselves, feel offended by the wishes of others, or be allergic to the term "professional". This forum is about software and not about the personality of individual users, not about belief and not about the bad guys versus the good guys (may it be users or companies, especially in relation to another software provider that starts with a capital "A").

Oh dear, it seems I've been too generous with the love.
 
Amen. Remember this guy…?

 

If I may copy my earlier remarks from an obviously off-topic place here, as this is a better place for them, I would really love to see improvements in the “little things” along the version 2 development cycle. By “little things” I mean those usability improvements that save us clicks in frequently performed tasks, most of which have extensively been discussed on these forums. Such as
Alt+drag to copy objects in the Layers Panel, Alt+click on layer’s or group’s triangle in the Layers Panel to open or close the entire subtree structure, as it is the case in macOS Finder, Shift+drag to constrain the aspect ratio of the Crop Tool rectangle in Photo, the option of having the Crop Tool remember its last-used state (make it a preference, if you don’t like to make it the default behaviour), the option of setting a custom default tool for an app and for embedded documents that are opened in a new tab (Photo, for instance, always defaults to the Hand Tool which is of no use if you have a trackpad), copy & paste of slices in the Export Persona, the option of adding the Snapping Options Buttons to the toolbar of the Export Persona, the option of holding down a key to temporarily activate a tool just until key release, the option of moving selected pixel content with marquee tool and Command key pressed, etc.
None of these improvements should really be controversial, overly difficult to implement or break any existing workflow. Let me detail just the first item from this list. In January 2015, in one of my first posts here, I had already suggested that the simple option of Alt(Opt) + dragging an object in the Layers Panel to clone the object to a new location in the layers tree should be implemented.
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/4006-some-layer-things/#comment-16292 To my understanding, this has never been an outlandish request. The respective option
has been available in competitors’ apps for ages, should be implementable with a few lines of code that won’t break anything (don’t tell me otherwise: if the team can set up nondestructive RAW developing and vector mesh warp, this should be an apprentice piece), does not require the implementation of additional UI elements (it is an “invisible” improvement that does not complicate the UI and changes the UX only for the better), does not interfere with Alt(Opt) + clicking for solo mode, since we are talking about Alt(Opt) + dragginghere (choose a different modifier for drag-cloning, if you consider it a problem), should be absolutely non-controversial as a most helpful option that speeds up layer workflows considerably, and does not break any existing workflow (if you don’t want to use it, just leave it aside). Considering these arguments, I think there’s really no good reason for not implementing this feature, and honestly, its implementation should also not fail due to missing workforce capacity. And it’s not that I would have been the only one asking for the feature. Here are a just a few threads that turn up in a superficial forum search:
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/7545-add-new-layer-above-current-object/ (April 2015) https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/17984-duplicate-a-layer-by-alt-drag-drop-in-layers-panel/ (February 2016 – November 2021) https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/28802-altdrag-layer-to-create-a-copy/ (November 2016) https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/163101-how-to-copy-layer-mask-and-paste-to-another-layer-in-affinity-photo-ipad/ (June 2022) So when you look at these comments (one could compile a similar list for many, if not all of the other features I mentioned above) and when you see, at the same time, that this simple quality-of-life feature has not yet been implemented, after seven years of development time and countless beta cycles, you cannot help to think “Well, they do theirs, don’t hold your breath.” Which will, inevitably, cause frustration. 🙁
I’m not saying this in order to bash the Affinity team or diminish their efforts. I just believe that after the great process they made with the new versions, it would be time to seriously turn their attention to these small features that come at virtually no development cost and would improve our daily lives tremendously. 🙂

I didn't mean to sound pompous or condescending by referring to 'pros'. Neither did I meant to be divisive (us vs them). I acknowledge that there are many users who don't make a living from the software, but whose needs are still relevant. However, I think it's fair to say that people who do make a living from the software are naturally going to (a) push the software to its limits more frequently, and (b) be able to provide more insight into what certain industries require. I think it's also fair to say that Affinity has positioned itself as a competitor to Adobe and its Creative Cloud suite, and that software does target professional users.
Let me add that I believe pro software can be suitable for casual users when it is designed well. One principle of good UI/UX is progressive disclosure—where the core features and tools that everyone (pro or casual user) needs are front and centre, while more advanced tools are available, though not immediately obvious. If done well, this allows beginners to intuit how things work, while still providing advanced users the features they need. Apple software tends (though not always) to be a pretty good example of this principle. You might notice that I included 'good UX designers' in my comment that you took issue with. I didn't expand on that, but this is precisely why I said it. Good UI/UX benefits everyone—beginners and advanced users alike. Everyone wins.

After reading your other post @ProDesigner (about the missing highlighting of the selected recent colour on iPad) I think I now understand, what your criticism is directed to.
I must say, I have been a big fan of V2 at first. I like the new features like the shape builder tool, the warp tools, multiple masks in Photo, "hide others", the new export dialogs and some more. But the more I try to work with it, the more I am disillusioned (and therefore disappointed). Still no simplify path tool, for example!
What I miss the most of all is stability. I could live with questionable UI/UX design decisions like locked layers that are not locked, preserved transparency not as layer options, but only for painting tools, an almost useless contour tool and so on. But I can't do my daily work with software that starts lagging to or freeze after using it some minutes.
I'm glad I don't have to rely on Affintiy Suite and have enough alternatives to get my work done. You will laugh, but for a children's non-fiction book I now used instead of Affintiy Publisher, which started crashing when I was almost ready with the layout, guess what: ... Photoline. This absolutely underrated gem had all the features I needed and used before in Affintiy Publisher: multi pages (of course), virtual duplicates of layers and layergroups (a combintation of linked shapes and symbols in Affinity), vector shapes with multi contours, vector shapes as layer masks, typografic adjustments that filled my needs and so on. And it is stable as a rock!
I would really prefer to do my work in the Affintiy suite, because I like the combination of all three apps very much and without doubt, there are some ingenious solutions like clipping by nesting layers, combination of vector and raster, the export persona with slices and so on. But all in all the apps after all these years are still that immature ☹️. So many open ends, that could be connected or just finished. That often stopped half the way. What is a contour tool usefull for, if it can just shift the contour? If I want a contour shifted, I want some original shape that this contour is around. But by using the contour tool I loose the original shape. Thus I have to do the contour with a copy of that shape. But what if I change the original shape? The contour on the copy doesn't follow, because it is a copy and not linked. Of course I could switch to Photo and establish a link between them, get back into designer... forget it! I could do much better with multiple strokes on the original shape.
But as said before, I could live with all these shortcommings and with workarounds - if the apps would be rock solid and stable.
 
 

Same here! My lag appears some time after using the App itself. Number of layers does not help as it seems the more you have, the bigger the lag. In my case the brushes work fine once activated, but UI is lagging 1-2 seconds between switching the tools. If I use pencil (N) and swap to move_node (A), it takes so long that sometimes I create extra nodes as I'm still in pencil mode, instead of nudging the nodes themselves. Same happens when I try to zoom and pane, it takes a sec or two for the tool to swap and activate itself. The software sometimes goes into freezing mode (not responding) and it takes 10-15 seconds before I can use anything again. 
I tried playing with settings, memory and disk space, hardware acceleration, even Undo Limit number. The issue still persist. Also, making sure evey time I experience the lag that "Windows Ink/Pen" is disabled on my Xp-Pen tablet drivers (as I heard this sometimes causes issues too). 
I use Win11, AMD Ryzen 9 (5900HS), 32 GB RAM & nVidia RTX 3060. 

The logo you place in the CMYK Publisher document must have CMYK as colour space too. Otherwise it will be rasterized by Publisher.