GFS

Is that a promise?

So did you use Live Picture?  If not, then how can you have an informed opinion about it?
Either way, it makes no difference.  Serif will do what works best for them.  The only point I'm making, is that this sort of tool, existed 30 years ago, in an app, that sadly didn't survive the usual bunch of money grubbers that got their hands on it and the industry carried on with the likes of Adobe running their company as a 'buy and kill' machine. Sigh.

Is that a promise?

Live Picture, by Live Picture (a bunch of recently graduated students).
It was essentially a compositing software, which was conceived to be able to do on a Mac, what was until then, done in *extremely* expensive retouching houses, as they moved away from manual retouching (transparencies, scalpels, bleach and tiny-brush+ink).  These large installations were pixel-pushers with the actual computers themselves in separate rooms due to their size and required air-conditioning.  Typically 2x ~2metre cube sized units, on the floor.  Cost ~£2million late80s + 1 year operator training.  Cost to client ~£500 per hour.  Obviously their use was almost 100% advertising.   It was pretty crazy, i.e. loony.. to think it could be done on a Mac back then, but 2 years mathematical thinking, followed by 2 years programming and there it was.
No other app has ever come close to what it could do, even though the patents have been over for a while.  Happy to expand if anyone is interested.

😊 Amazing that there's anything really.  The last vs was produced in '97.
There are so many things which it did so well and that are still unmatched today.  Example:  Imagine taking a 300megapixel 16-bit tiff, then, using a brush of 500megapixel size, distort your image in a single smooth, gentle brush-stroke... and ... the distortion is applied as you paint/brush in real-time.  The instant you lift your brush, it's done.  Even if you take your brush and do a frantic squiggle back and forth, it's done instantly.  Not even a seconds pause.  Instant.

Live Picture, by Live Picture (a bunch of recently graduated students).
It was essentially a compositing software, which was conceived to be able to do on a Mac, what was until then, done in *extremely* expensive retouching houses, as they moved away from manual retouching (transparencies, scalpels, bleach and tiny-brush+ink).  These large installations were pixel-pushers with the actual computers themselves in separate rooms due to their size and required air-conditioning.  Typically 2x ~2metre cube sized units, on the floor.  Cost ~£2million late80s + 1 year operator training.  Cost to client ~£500 per hour.  Obviously their use was almost 100% advertising.   It was pretty crazy, i.e. loony.. to think it could be done on a Mac back then, but 2 years mathematical thinking, followed by 2 years programming and there it was.
No other app has ever come close to what it could do, even though the patents have been over for a while.  Happy to expand if anyone is interested.

I started working with selections automatically as  vectors/masks/stencils  in 1995.  Just sayin'.

Ahhh... stumped.
Thanks for the info Walt.
FWIW... Time Machine has saved the day once again, in the short term.  1.10.1 works fine.

If I select an adjustment layer I can't select the gradient tool with a mouse click. But it's possible to select the gradient tool bei shortcut G

FileMaker-icons use a subgroup of commands in their format. When you want to expand the given icons with some own you must use a text editor and alter existing icons because export of an altered original icon will either result in unusable or unimportable files.
As a specialist for graphic file formats it should be possible for you to implement a "Export to FileMaker-SVG" that meets these restrictions:-)
Infos can be found here:
https://fmhelp.filemaker.com/docs/14/en/svg/
 

I wonder if this isn't a decision about speed by Serif.  I expect that AFP has a pyramid of internal jpegs for display and adjusts on the fly for in-betweens.  Blur is slow to calculate and can bring AFP to it's knees in processing ... although this has improved significantly with 1.7x.  Perhaps it would be enough to simply offer a checkbox to use 'accurate' previews, when desired.  My old favourite imaging app had this waaaayyy back in the mid90s.  A simple toggle between speed and accuracy.

Thanks Walt.
You're correct.. and there I was thinking that zoom to 100% to see if, e.g. banding is really there, days we're over.  Ho hum.
*However*
This remains an issue.  I need to be able to see my entire image on-screen, in order to judge how much blur I want to apply.  Zooming in to 100% on a ~100 megapixel image is completely unworkable in this regard.
So at the moment, in order to see how much blur I want, I have to make a guess in AFP, Export to tiff, look at that, go back, adjust, Export to tiff, look at that, go back adjust, Export to tiff, look at that ... I think we call this a problem.  The AFP preview (on-screen image)  needs to be accurate.

I think this will depend on whoever and whatever apps, if any, take advantage of MacOS 10.15 giving developers access to the Photos database.  We just don't know yet.  It hasn't even shipped. (Another month?)  Obviously it would be in the interests of any developer to make a transition to their system as simple as possible.  I would imagine that Catalogs and Collections would be easy as they're essentially a database question.  Adjustments may be harder.
 

Thanks for the replies.
As you said Walt and R C-R,  AFP is respecting the metadata, which is great and my problem was coming from the way that Aperture handles files which are lacking a metadata date.  In fact, what it does is it displays the Finder date in the exif date field, but if these files are exported *as originals*, that date is not included, presumably because it is not a part of the original file.  So that is as it should be.  If you export as a version, then the date is applied, which equally, makes sense.  On top of this, it turns out that it's trivial to set the date permanently in the originals, within Aperture.  So my problems is solved without any headache ... just a lot of fiddling, checking, searching etc.  Also good to see that AFP is handling batch conversion in a useful way.

MEB,
 
I'm coming to Affinity from a long history of digital imaging, dating all the way back to the early 90s.  To give you an idea, on the shelf behind me, I have a box for Photoshop 1.0  However, around version 3.0, I moved away from Photoshop, because of its slow performance and poor quality. Just opening an 8 bit file reduced it to 7 bits and a couple of operations like sharpening and you were down to 5 bits, which is why people thought digital images were ugly back then.
 
There was an alternative in those days, which in some ways I think may have been an inspiration for Affinity (perhaps unconsciously?) which was Live Picture.  This was a truly non-destructive app, being entirely vectorial and having no concept of pixels at all, either for the images or the paint and it was 16 bit for all internal operations.  So for 20 years, I've been freely combining photos and vector drawing with amazing speed and total freedom.  The like of the stunningly beautiful and smooth vectorial brushes have never been seen since (I'd love you guys to produce the same) and there are a few simple things/procedures that it does very simply and very well.  Obviously there have been advances in digital imaging and it has been left behind in some ways ... e.g. sharpening has moved on massively, so I mix it with more modern apps.
 
Being ancient, it relies on ancient equipment, which is obviously going to fail at some time and so I'm constantly keeping an eye open for alternatives and Affinity is really what appears to me to be the first serious alternative for my use.  So I'm hoping you'll be moving in the direction that I'm looking for!   :)  I doubt you'll match its speed though. :)  

Is it true that the brush names appear in the Brushes Studio only if a brush is assigned to a particular brush tool, or am I overlooking a preference or option to show the brush name for all brushes?
If only assigned brush names are displayed, are any plans to add a preference to show the names for all brushes?

The iPad apps show brush names underneath the stroke previews in the Brushes list.  Please can this be added to the desktop versions too?  Having to hover my mouse over dozens of brushes one by one to find the brush I need slows me down massively!

I have many brushes, some of which appear similar to each other in the palette, but behave differently. In order to easier differentiate them I'd like to see (and change) their names in addition to the stroke preview. In fact, I'd like to customize what I see: tip, stroke, name, and also set a size for the icons.

The real thing for me JoJu, was Aperture.  Unfortunately it is still the best, even years after Apple, for some crazy reason, killed it off.  It’s hard to write software that good and Adobe have certainly not managed with Lr, although it is adequate for many people and everyone of course, must pick one of the tools that are available.  One day someone will write something as good as Aperture and I will switch with much relief ... but in the mean time, until the workarounds become worse than the alternatives, I’ll stick with them and Aperture.

The real thing for me JoJu, was Aperture.  Unfortunately it is still the best, even years after Apple, for some crazy reason, killed it off.  It’s hard to write software that good and Adobe have certainly not managed with Lr, although it is adequate for many people and everyone of course, must pick one of the tools that are available.  One day someone will write something as good as Aperture and I will switch with much relief ... but in the mean time, until the workarounds become worse than the alternatives, I’ll stick with them and Aperture.

Pas mal monsieur Somerfield !  Support en multilingue.  Les talents sans fin.  :)

Ha!  Well done toltec.  Top marks.
 
Maybe there should be a sub-forum for ‘cryptic half posts ... guess the answer’ with points awarded for best answer ... and of course, what would points mean?

Ha!  Well done toltec.  Top marks.
 
Maybe there should be a sub-forum for ‘cryptic half posts ... guess the answer’ with points awarded for best answer ... and of course, what would points mean?

I have this same question.  There seems to be inconsistency with the Sources Panel.  Sometimes I can close the file and upon re-opening, it's empty.  Other times it re-opens showing the Sources.
 
Is there an answer to why this happens?

You don't necessarily have to get the data in and out.  I work with a > 20 year old software which can apply its edits to any file. Any file.  So for example, you could work on a tiny jpeg on the iPad and syncing via cloud, have those same edits applied to a full sized file somewhere else.  I'm sure that AFP will have something along those lines.  They have also talked of feature parity with the desktop version.
 
As to whether or not Apple can be trusted for pros going forward, sadly I have to agree with you.  As an Aperture user, I very much doubt that I would *ever* trust Apple for pro application use again.  The cavalier way that one of the most wealthy companies in the world 'dumped' us, was unbelievable.
 
The downside of the Surface, is Windows.  Nothing they currently say can make that any better.