cgidesign

Test with relative colorimetric intent - this one looks good. It does what I would expect it to do.

APh V2 trial on Windows 10. All ICC profiles set correctly in Windows Color Management. Issue: Converting sRGB TIFF to CMYK ISO coated V2 gives wrong result (using absolute colorimetric rendering intent - not yet tested other conversons). Correct conversion is shown in ColorThink Pro (a scientific color management analyzing software). Is there something I am missing or is this just a bug in V2 (and V1)? Testrender_export_Affinity_Photo.tiff

Yes - that Windows tends to assign wrong ICC profiles to a monitor can be a pain in the bu**.

Neither assign a monitor ICC to an image nor convert the image into the monitor ICC. Those profiles are there to correct the deviation of your monitor from the profile your image is in. Affinity apps apply this final correction automatically. Firefox at default configuration assumes any input image to be in sRGB. In that case it does a correct conversion using, I think, perceptional rendering intent. If you want it to act like a softproofing device, you need to read about its color management and change the settings accordingly. Windows color management is part of that and can sometimes cause issues. See thread below: Affinity's softproof might not help you because it is broken. See here: and in much more detail here:

Thanks all. I will post an update here once I tested it.

I found the Adobe statement. They don't recommend to save / load over network because the infrastructure etc. can be faulty and they write they don't give support for network storage issues. That's clear. But they don't write that the way how CC products write files hinders a NAS storage concept. Direct attached HDDs (e.g. USB drives) are officially ok for them. The linked post about Affinity gives the impression it is the App itself that causes the issues. The supporting moderators are very helpful to recover affected files from users but don't say whether external HDDs or network storage is supported or not. Your @walt.farrell feedback is a hint that the linked post might give a wrong impression and NAS can work without issues. Anyway, I'll test it with V2 trial for my local work when the mainboard with the 10Gb ethernet arrived. But there is a company asking me about Affinity and V2 for internal graphics stuff - and they save everything over networks to virtual servers. So, I still hope to get a feedback from Serif whether they think their software can be used in a network storage environment or not. As said, Adobe does not support it, but maybe Affinity does.

Thanks Walt for your reply. I assume you are not writing officially in behalf of Serif? Do you personally have experience with a NAS storage system and can let me know is if works for your or not? I found a reply from Serif where a moderator wrote, that a user's file was of to high dimension and might have exeeded ram or vram size, which may have caused file corruption. But I did not find a more general info like: "our - Serif's - file save / load algorythms are quite robust and of course support storage concepts that include direct storage to NAS systems (but we can not comment on instabilities of the external systems, operating system or connectivity issues)" "our - Serif's - file save / load algorythms do not support storage concepts that include direct storage to NAS or any other external storage. If you use such a concept you risk file corruption"

yes - but maybe first implement 10bit display output, so we don't see banding that is not in the image data.

Affinity staff or anybody else, do you have experinence with a storing concept like the one above and can give an opinion?

Another user posted a similar issue. The cause there was a password with characters that where not evaluated by whatever server software Affinity is using. I think he made a new password in his profile settings (Affintiy store site, not the forum site). The new password did not contain special characters as far as I remember. After that change he was able to log in from within the bought App and register ist.

Thanks for the tip, I tried that already, but it replaces it circle with the cross instead of hiding it completely. I think that is what you ments by "at least hide the circle".

WIn 10, RTX 2070, notebook. TourBox Elite latest control software. It works with Affinity V1 and V2 in general. But, for me, if the Pen Display and Affinity are set to Windows Ink, then the Tourbox does not work well. Some shortcut keys set in Tourbox and Affinity do not create the desired result. With Affinity set to either low or high precision instead of Windows Ink in preferences everything works as expected. The Windows Ink issue might be only in my configuration because Affinity does not work with Windows Ink at all on my machine (slow brush strokes, freezes etc.). See also here:

Windows 10 - Affinity V2. Affinity V2, external storage (NAS), is it supported or not? In the below linked thread users write, they got corrupted files when using external storage. The conclusion of users seems to be, that Affinity's file handling in general has issues with saving to external storage and the APPs should only be used with local disks. But this is based on individual experience and I am not sure if it is mainly related to external USB disks where the users have not switched off the caching in Windows. I can't find something in Affinity's specifications page regarding this. Is there somewhere an official statement or recommendation from Serif regarding the topic? Storage Concept planned: Files from Affinity should go to an external NAS via 10-Gbit ethernet (= approx. 1 Gigabyte / sec). Temp, scratch and cache folders are on a local disk (M.2 SSD) Save as and load from goes to and from the external NAS. External NAS is a Qnap TVS (a mid level pro NAS) with each storage volume set to RAID 1 Goals: Redundancy: Saving to NAS ensures immediate redundancy without the need to handle backup or replication. Time saving: Files can be accessed from multiple machines (e.g. texture maps created and saved with Affinity can be used from a Render PC, Notebook etc. without the need to copy, replicate etc.). Reducing pipeline complexity: Actually the storing to the NAS is handeled manually or by setting up replication rules in a dedicated software. By saving to NAS directly those steps would be obsolete.

Huion 24 (4K) here. It does not work for me with Windows Ink in Preferences - App hangs for several seconds with any brush stroke. But "Low Precision" is ok. "High Precision" is ok as well but has quirkes when starting a brush stroke.

Strange. I hope others find this thread and can test as well. The mainboard of my workstation is faulty and I now need to decide if I try to find a new trx40 board to keep my old AMD Threadripper alive or switch to a new system with Intel.

For me only one APh app hang so far with V2. V1 always hang after a few operations. Nvidia RTX 2070, Intel i7 notebook. Driver version 517.48 Studio. It happened with "protect transparency" enabled in a brush and after a few brush strokes. Beside of that APh V2 is fast and stable for me so far. One detail regarding the drivers. Every nvidia driver between 517.48 and 526.98 has opencl issues confirmed by nvidia. I don't know If those issues are relevant for Affinity, but crashes of an opencl function in another product have been reported in high numbers.

Not fixed - and no roadmap to let us know if it will ever be implemented.

Quoting myself here: In an official post from Affinity I just read that they sold three times more updates than they expected. Maybe that gives them the funds to look into the issues carried over to V2.

Interesting test and result. To cross check I did a run with Intel i7 and RTX 2070 on a notebook. The result is different than yours. On this machine sandbox vs. unzip does not show a relevant difference. Nvidia driver is 526.98 studio (that's the one, that has the bugfix for some open CL issues in other applications). Maybe somebody with another AMD - Nvidia combination can cross check as well. Would be interesting to know if the speed degration can be reproduced on multiple AMD Nvidia machines.

And another grandfather said "if a tool is broken - fix it" - like in bug fixing.

V1 was such a promise when released. It got better over the time. But it still has issues (not regrarding missing features but issues with, in my optinion, the base). All those issues got tested and reported by user in detail. It was explained what is wrong and why it matters. There was hope that Serif fixes those issues with V2. Now on V2 trial the hardware acceleration got optimized. But that's it. All the other base issues are all still there in V2 - and there is no roadmap. No way to know if Serif has interest in fixing something or not. I fear, Serif is now in "feature hell" - more, more, more features because maybe their managers think they need features, features, features on the launch page. So, new features are there - great. But on top of the old issues now there are new bugs and some new features are only half baked. I think, a lot of users who send those detailed issue reports, did not do that because it's their hobby to complain in forums, but because they use the software for some reason and are happy to acts as "free of charge beta testers and suggestion makers". I think they are interested in Affinity becoming a "real new standard" (which, in my opinion V2 is not). I personally am already laughing when a moderator writes "we logged it with the developers". Without a roadmap this means nothing. I read it as "yes, it's a bug, yes it's a limitation, yes, it's a hindering the workflow ..., maybe we solve it, maybe not." V2 seems to be an indication that "we solve it not" is the more often used solution. I use V1 and like it. But investing more time in testing and bug reporting for V2 is not what I want to do, after learning that Serif likes to consume this free service of mine but does not give any feedback in form of a roadmap. I thought the affinity solutions would become the suite to replace my Lego box of softwares (open source and commercial ones). But for me V2 indicates this is not likely to happen. Maybe Serif is in a "jack of all trades but master of none" dilemma. And maybe they sell to cheap to fund the ressources to become the "real new standard".

Check this thread that started 14th Jan. 2019. I don't know if it covers your specific issue, but it tells you someting about the Affinity Apps and alpha channel work for cgi. Hint: the user feedback is not so good. As far as I know it is still all the same in Version2.

Both support 10bpc. The question is: does Affinity?

Oh my good, just found this thread. I am running into those issues - one after the other - since working more with Affinity - but in V2 not V1. Some of those I found in V1 in the past as well and posted as reports. I of course thought its my fault, and invested time to cross check read posts, post myself etc. I am writing one bug report and feature request after the other. And now I see all this has been reported already and it seems nothing has been fixed. @NotMyFault Have you ever heard back from them? I sometimes get answers from moderators confirming there is something wrong and it will be "logged with the developers". But it sounds like the issues are new to them. But now I read all these issues are known. So, what is the purpose of users, testing, testing again, making screenshots, taking the time to explain all this in posts, if it then lands in Affinity's trash can. Is this some kind of eternally greets the groundhog? At least they could be so kind to make a list of "the most glaring issues in the base architecture which we know are there but have not fixed". It would have saved me hours and hours of testing and bug reporting. What is going on with Affinity? I consider these being severe limitations of the base architecture. Is their decision to let it be as it is because most users don't care or don't notice? How can a company write "Version 2 sets new standards in creative software" if the base has those issues? After reading this thread I now agree - V2 sets new standards in keeping the issues from the previous version. Sorry about the negativity Affinity - I like your software but it seems you are going the feature hell route - adding more and more but not fixing the base.

Yes, the dynamics work for me as well. I could set them to 0 to 100% which then means Flow = 0 to 100 if Flow in general is set to 100%. But the issue hereby is, that it is difficult to draw with e.g. a constant value of around 50% pressure on the pen. I would say my hand and the pen electronics are just to nervous for that. So, I prefer to set the general Flow for example to 50% and the dynamics to e.g. 10%. I then have a Flow deviation from 45% to 55% depenting on the pen pressure from 0 to 100 (took me some time to understand how the dynamics in Affinity work). If I then reduce the general Flow to 30% I get 27% to 33% Flow deviation, depending on pen 0 - 100. That concept works quite well for me. If I just could set this general Flow with the controller 😉 I think I found the macro solution you mentioned. It seems to be an open source programming solution. Frankly speaking, I would prefer to just get a shortcut in the Affinity apps, but will have a look into it anyway. https://www.autohotkey.com/