CM0

I don't use an app store. Just download it. The app stores would have to use in-app purchase as the only mechanism for paid feature upgrades.

The point is even with a 2.0 fee, they can't go another 7 or 8 years without a fee and be strongly competitive. It would be better to charge something for every feature update rather than nothing.

Yes, $5 is a no brainer. I wouldn't hesitate to pay at least $5 for all feature updates.

I absolutely agree that the current model is not sustainable. It is essentially free software. Just charge for the feature update releases. For those who already have purchased, just allow upgrades with a significant discount.

It is not a workable model anyway. Maintaining older versions would require multiple parallel branches of the code. This is a burden on development for every branch you have to maintain. You have to backport and merge bug fixes. Each version of the software then has to go through the full cycle, build, test, verification etc. It is costly to maintain older versions.

Subscription models are absolutely terrible. However, it seems Affinity is considering it. Subscription models are a major benefit to the revenue of the company, but are a detriment to satisfying user needs. You will pay far more per feature. It becomes a guaranteed revenue stream. There is less incentive for the company to address user issues as you will keep paying regardless as the goal is always to lock you in to their ecosystem through cloud based software.

If they would just fix the open bugs, that would be equivalent to a major release. So many features that are unusable.

Ironically, at some point I think near the beginning of the year people were complaining about the lack of communication. A moderator acknowledged that Affinity was aware of the issue and it has essentially been silence ever since. Mods have only stated they are busy working on the next release. When they sent out the user survey, I mentioned communication as a very important issue. Whenever I have brought up this point in the past, the response I get seems to be they don't want to be more open because that would simply invite more complaints as if being silent doesn't create just as many complaints combined with lack of confidence and lack of momentum in the industry.

You are right, it is not the same. The browser exists across far more systems. All those of Affinity, plus every flavor of Linux and Android. Browsers are some of the most complex software of applications people use every day. Browser development also has to deal with very complex security issues. Yet, they still have daily builds that everyone can use. Relative size of software, see Chrome and Firefox from 5 years ago - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/millions-lines-of-code/

No, I'm describing a software development process. If customers are not in the loop of the process, then it is not an Agile process. There are many companies and projects that will claim to do agile because managers like industry buzz words, but in practice they are not actually doing agile.

Browsers are updated daily and across multiple operating systems and platforms. You can get a daily build of chrome which is called canary. I'm simply referencing models that are leading the industry in Agile development. It doesn't matter what they are building.

We are. Same process.

That's because most apps now update automatically without you ever knowing it. All cloud software is updated continuously. Your web browser and all apps on your phone etc.

Agile is done in iterations building on a feature always on a regular schedule. Typical iteration is weekly. Beta is just another continuous build running ahead of production. It is an entire process methodology, frequent releases is only part of the process. It encompasses the entire development cycle of how requirements are gathered, prioritized, customer feedback, testing, builds etc. This entire cycle takes place within a unit of time such as a week. This distinctly differs from waterfall. Where you gather all the requirements at once for a release. Plan the release. Develop the release. Beta test and get customer feedback, defect fixing cycle and finally release. Maintenance updates etc can still be somewhat frequent, but the core feature development is long.

However, updating your product about once a year is more like the 90s. It was called "waterfall" development. A process that has been mostly abandoned in modern software development and replaced with Agile in which releases are done very frequently. The benefit is not simply to release frequently, but to get feedback from users before you commit to a full year of development before you realize you delivered something the users don't like. Much easier to better align with users when you have at least monthly releases. If something is not right, you can much easier fix it than if you had already committed a year behind it.

It would also be great to be able to have stable diffusion integrated in such way you could generate objects that were already perfectly masked and color graded to place into your scene.

Now that we have a open source AI generator. Affinity could leverage this to provide integration directly into the product. Potentially could provide for unique capabilities when combined such as AI brushes. Imagine being able to paint trees, flowers as a brush AI generated etc.

That's because productivity has increased by orders of magnitude due to both software, hardware and development process innovations. The baseline for expected progress moves up as tech advances.

Unfortunately, none of the live filters are fixed for any of my use cases. All of my projects are still broken 😞 Note, once you have a filter that is attached to an item within another object, it will always be broken. So even if you later move it out to be a top level item, you can no longer duplicate it as you did before. The perspective live filter performs differently based on whether the live filter mask is attached as a clipping or masking layer. Looks like I did those as clipping child layers. However, the problem manifests irregardless of either method.

I looked at your files. So I was wrong about the group. It must be a child of some object. So instead of the group, place them inside a rectangle or something. I do all of my work on Artboards. In that case, they are always broken. You could also go to the issue I linked above. I have an example file there you can open and duplicate the items.

It only works as long as the object you are applying the perspective is not a child layer of any other object. If you do the same thing on an artboard, it will not work. Or if placed in a group.

It is not fixed, I just reported this with the current release.

It should have been fixed in the current beta. I originally reported it August of last year. FYI, this bug affects all live filters. I don't know how anybody uses this.

PiXimperfect (very popular photoshop channel) posted a video covering features that are missing from Photoshop. The video hits points that would make strong promotional points for Affinity. Some interesting feedback in the comments as well.

Thank you. FYI, out of all the issues I've opened, this is the highest priority for me. I have found no work around and the impact to the type of work I'm producing is the greatest. Just some feedback I hope you could pass along for prioritization. Thanks!