Corgi

It would be nice to formalize the ability to use gradients with the Paint Brush, not just solid colors. While it is evidently already possible to do this, it's an awkward process, and apparently an unsupported feature. From what I can tell, the only way to paint with a given gradient in AP is to already have it pre-defined as a Swatch or Recent color (i.e., there is no way to define or edit a gradient with the Paint Brush selected). So it would seem helpful to have the option to create and edit gradients from within the Color Chooser.
 
Please refer to this topic:
 

Unless I'm missing something, there is no way to create control points on Sharp nodes without click-dragging one of the paths the node is connected to. But doing so will modify the control points on the other end of the path you drag. For example:

Now suppose I want to gain access to a control point on the leftmost node. Dragging down on the path immediately to the right of that node yields:

Why did the Smooth node on the right need to change? How can I restore the control points to their original positions? There should be a way to create the control point on the Sharp node without affecting anything else. This doesn't seem to be a problem on Coreldraw for example.
 

To elaborate more on Node improvements (with some overlap of OP's suggestions), there are some missing features I routinely encounter -- perhaps there are already solutions to these which I don't know about:
Ability (or at least the option) to change a node from Smooth to Sharp without affecting the curve's shape. 
  Ability (or option) to change a node from Sharp to Smooth without affecting the curve's shape, in situations where the node is Sharp but the handles are already in perfect 180-degree alignment. When editing a Sharp node in Affinity, the node automatically turns into a Smooth mode if the handles become perfectly aligned like that, so it might seem like you can't have a Sharp node that mimics a Smooth node. But this isn't the case (for example) when opening an SVG file. In my case, today I had an SVG that I was editing, and many Sharp nodes were effectively Smooth (control points/handles formed a straight line), but when I converted them to Smooth nodes Affinity unnecessarily changed the handles and shape of the curve.
  Ability to show or produce handles on Sharp nodes without "pulling" the curve. The problem with dragging the curve is that it modifies the control point for the other end of the segment. Often I wish to leave the control point on one end alone while changing the behavior only of the Sharp node in question.

After Adobe went to subscription-only, I coasted on CS6 for a while and then switched to Affinity, and have never looked back. OK, well, I do fire up Photoshop every now and again for one reason or another, but overall I've been delighted with the Affinity products, and the value proposition they offer.
Market-wise, Serif's products lie in the middle of the huge gulf between expensive, rigid Adobe, and free, freewheeling open-source alternatives (GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus...). With respect to communication with users, I find myself wishing that Serif would lean more toward the behavior of open-source products.
Serif's communication is hit-or-miss. The v1 Beta programs did a good job giving users an insight into short-term plans for features and bug fixes. But this was all users could see in the way of a product roadmap. And the long gap between v1 and v2 with no public Beta left users in the dark for a very long time. For the most part, we were left guessing. Just the fact that there was a thread entitled "Is Affinity dead?" exemplifies that situation.
In the forums, Serif staff are very responsive to questions about bugs, existing features, and product behavior, which is absolutely wonderful.
On the other hand, my perception is that questions about Serif's short- or long-term plans, or even in some cases questions about existing policies, are greeted with a frustrating silence. 
Recent examples include the v1=>v2 upgrade pricing kerfuffles (there are two of them: one for longstanding v1 users, and one for recent v1 purchasers), the Windows msix installation debacle, and the aforementioned radio silence after 1.10.5.
Some of this secrecy might be justifiable (if somewhat cynically) for business reasons. For example, prospective first-time customers looking to buy Affinity v1 this past July might've been discouraged if they knew that v2 would be released in November, but they would have to pay the going rate for the upgrade. Or, if they learned that their hoped-for feature would not be implemented. So they might have chosen to hold off, impacting the timing and amount of revenue to Serif. 
However, for the most part, I am having trouble understanding the rationale for much of the secrecy. Seeing a product roadmap can be an incentive to buy into a product at an early stage. Maybe someone doesn't want to purchase Designer because they're not sure if there'll ever be a bitmap trace feature. If they see it on the roadmap, perhaps they'll take the plunge now, to start their transition. 
And most of us understand that there will be uncertainty. Even without a definitive answer, a response is superior to silence.
It's fine for Serif to say, "This is the fairly firm roadmap for v2.2 through v2.3, the tentative roadmap for 2.4-2.8, and the speculative feature set for v3. Any of this is still liable to change. Feedback welcome."
It would have been fine for Serif to say on the day after the v2 announcement, "We understand that some users have an issue with the MSIX installation. We're going to be discussing it among ourselves to determine what, if anything we will do in response. Stay tuned." It obviously would have been even better if the plans to use MSIX had been divulged months before announcement, since it would have better prepared Serif for release.
Posts like Ash's, which explain details surrounding the pricing and upgrade decisions, are fantastic, but IMO they could've been published MUCH earlier.
Most of the people who follow the forums, myself included, are committed Affinity users and supporters. We're going to be upgrading to v2, and we're very likely to pay again for v3. So I'm just not clear on what Serif gains by being so reticent to tell us what's going on, and what the plans are for the future.

Hi Corgi,
I've logged this for the devs to take a look at.
Lee

I'm using Designer 2.2.1
Normally when changing a node from Sharp to Smooth (or Smart) you'd expect the curve to change. But if the curve at the Sharp node is actually "smooth" to begin with, there's no reason for the shape of the curve to change.
It may not be possible to create this scenario from scratch within Designer, since when you have a Sharp node and move a control point such that it becomes parallel to the other control point, the node automatically becomes Smooth. However, this is not the case when opening an SVG file or editing an embedded SVG file. Consider this portion of a Designer file that was used to open an SVG file:

The node in the center is Sharp, yet the control points are aligned (perhaps give or take a rounding error). But if I change the node type to Smooth, this is what I get:

This behavior makes touching up imported graphics imprecise and much more tedious. Designer should recognize this situation and leave the curve as-is when converting the node to Smooth.
Of course, this situation would arise much less frequently if Designer had its own bitmap trace support. 😉
The attached afdesign file was derived from opening an SVG file with Designer (I created the SVG file by tracing it with CorelDraw and exporting). You can play around with it if you want.
 
sharp-to-smooth.afdesign

I've run into this as well when editing imported vectors. I feel like this has happened too when I've merged paths in Affinity itself and I've had to change my strategy when working with points to avoid unwanted changes to the initial curve.

I'm using Designer 2.2.1
Normally when changing a node from Sharp to Smooth (or Smart) you'd expect the curve to change. But if the curve at the Sharp node is actually "smooth" to begin with, there's no reason for the shape of the curve to change.
It may not be possible to create this scenario from scratch within Designer, since when you have a Sharp node and move a control point such that it becomes parallel to the other control point, the node automatically becomes Smooth. However, this is not the case when opening an SVG file or editing an embedded SVG file. Consider this portion of a Designer file that was used to open an SVG file:

The node in the center is Sharp, yet the control points are aligned (perhaps give or take a rounding error). But if I change the node type to Smooth, this is what I get:

This behavior makes touching up imported graphics imprecise and much more tedious. Designer should recognize this situation and leave the curve as-is when converting the node to Smooth.
Of course, this situation would arise much less frequently if Designer had its own bitmap trace support. 😉
The attached afdesign file was derived from opening an SVG file with Designer (I created the SVG file by tracing it with CorelDraw and exporting). You can play around with it if you want.
 
sharp-to-smooth.afdesign

Hi, I'd like to suggest some tools and features for next upgrade on AD V2:
Nodes tool: Assign shortcut keys for nodes tool convert node to smart, smooth, smart, and so on. Add "convert to curve" option in the nodes tool. By clicking this option, sharp nodes will show handles and allow users to edit it more precisely without dragging the line first to make the handles show. Add "convert to symmetry" option in the nodes tool. That means when you drag and adjust one handle, the other handle will follow with the same length. Add "convert to cusp" option for the nodes. Add option to simplify nodes from an object (decrease excessive nodes from an object to achieve cleaner path). Add option that allow us to delete nodes without changing the path shape. Maybe by Shift+Delete (like adobe Illustrator have) Warp Group: Add option to create warp shape from selected object. This will helps a lot when fitting text or design to a desire shape to speed up workflow and for more precision result. Add "symmetry" option in vector persona. Add "Freehand selection" tool that acts like "lasso tool" for selecting objects on challenging positions. Add "Image Trace" ability. Add convert vector brush to vector shape. Add "Mesh Fill" or "Mesh Gradient" tool. Thank you!
 

This thread was intended to be about Serif's communication with its user base.
The details about how v1=>v2 upgrades might've been done differently are interesting, but there are other threads that are more on point for that.

Thank you for your thoughtful insights, Debra. The quote above is just one sentence I pulled out from your long reply; don't read too much into my selection. 😉
It would be interesting to know how much of what you speculated about actually reflects the history and present situation with development. I'm sure there has been a lot of information passed around in the forums (that I've never read) which sheds some light about what might be behind various decisions they've made.
I hadn't spent a ton of time in the forums until v2 came out, other than to check in vain periodically for new Betas. But after v2 came out, I dove into the forums and found myself asking, "Why are people surprised by <x>," and "Why doesn't Serif say something about <y>," and "How did Serif make the decision about <z>?" So I am only reacting to the symptoms of whatever history led Serif to this point.
I hope that they will take a fresh look at how they interact with the user base and make adjustments to their blind spots. As I said, there's a lot they get right already.

That's why, when you release a roadmap, you wouldn't want to cast it as ironclad.
"The timeline, roadmap, and list of features shown here are preliminary in nature and subject to change based on many factors such as technical considerations, time considerations, economic conditions, corporate re-prioritization, and customer feedback. In no way are they to be construed as commitments."

Perhaps, although your second sentence sounds quite unlikely.
And, in which situation might you be more resentful: 1) You purchase the product and hope for feature X, and release after release, X never materializes; or 2) You see on the roadmap that feature X won't be for awhile? I'd prefer the latter...at least I'd know up-front that it's not coming.
Releasing a roadmap (or a partial/tentative roadmap) can also excite people and generate a buzz that wouldn't be generated otherwise. And/or, it could also provide valuable feedback to Serif as they see people's reactions to the roadmap, causing them to reprioritize to benefit the user community as a whole. We just saw this happen with MSIX, although after the fact.
Look, as I admitted up front, showing a roadmap can cut both ways, but there is merit to its consideration. Your replies tend to suggest that you see no potential benefit at all to Serif. Not sure if I'm mischaracterizing your position, but that's what's coming across. However, neither one of us is in the position to render a verdict either way.
Beyond not publicizing a product roadmap, there are other more obvious missteps that Serif has taken with respect to communication with users that I mention in my original post. Just sayin', this wasn't only about the lack of a roadmap.

After Adobe went to subscription-only, I coasted on CS6 for a while and then switched to Affinity, and have never looked back. OK, well, I do fire up Photoshop every now and again for one reason or another, but overall I've been delighted with the Affinity products, and the value proposition they offer.
Market-wise, Serif's products lie in the middle of the huge gulf between expensive, rigid Adobe, and free, freewheeling open-source alternatives (GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus...). With respect to communication with users, I find myself wishing that Serif would lean more toward the behavior of open-source products.
Serif's communication is hit-or-miss. The v1 Beta programs did a good job giving users an insight into short-term plans for features and bug fixes. But this was all users could see in the way of a product roadmap. And the long gap between v1 and v2 with no public Beta left users in the dark for a very long time. For the most part, we were left guessing. Just the fact that there was a thread entitled "Is Affinity dead?" exemplifies that situation.
In the forums, Serif staff are very responsive to questions about bugs, existing features, and product behavior, which is absolutely wonderful.
On the other hand, my perception is that questions about Serif's short- or long-term plans, or even in some cases questions about existing policies, are greeted with a frustrating silence. 
Recent examples include the v1=>v2 upgrade pricing kerfuffles (there are two of them: one for longstanding v1 users, and one for recent v1 purchasers), the Windows msix installation debacle, and the aforementioned radio silence after 1.10.5.
Some of this secrecy might be justifiable (if somewhat cynically) for business reasons. For example, prospective first-time customers looking to buy Affinity v1 this past July might've been discouraged if they knew that v2 would be released in November, but they would have to pay the going rate for the upgrade. Or, if they learned that their hoped-for feature would not be implemented. So they might have chosen to hold off, impacting the timing and amount of revenue to Serif. 
However, for the most part, I am having trouble understanding the rationale for much of the secrecy. Seeing a product roadmap can be an incentive to buy into a product at an early stage. Maybe someone doesn't want to purchase Designer because they're not sure if there'll ever be a bitmap trace feature. If they see it on the roadmap, perhaps they'll take the plunge now, to start their transition. 
And most of us understand that there will be uncertainty. Even without a definitive answer, a response is superior to silence.
It's fine for Serif to say, "This is the fairly firm roadmap for v2.2 through v2.3, the tentative roadmap for 2.4-2.8, and the speculative feature set for v3. Any of this is still liable to change. Feedback welcome."
It would have been fine for Serif to say on the day after the v2 announcement, "We understand that some users have an issue with the MSIX installation. We're going to be discussing it among ourselves to determine what, if anything we will do in response. Stay tuned." It obviously would have been even better if the plans to use MSIX had been divulged months before announcement, since it would have better prepared Serif for release.
Posts like Ash's, which explain details surrounding the pricing and upgrade decisions, are fantastic, but IMO they could've been published MUCH earlier.
Most of the people who follow the forums, myself included, are committed Affinity users and supporters. We're going to be upgrading to v2, and we're very likely to pay again for v3. So I'm just not clear on what Serif gains by being so reticent to tell us what's going on, and what the plans are for the future.

Hi @Corgi,
This is a known issue currently logged with the developers, i've updated the existing issue and bumped it with your report. The tag for this issue is slightly different to afp-3062, but it is the same issue. 🙂

Thank you for the simple workaround. 

Group the pixel layer with itself and apply the gaussian blur to the group.
or apply the gaussian blur to the pixellayer and the blendrange to the group.

I'm old enough to remember digital cameras appearing. They don't take good images, they are bad in low light, the photos look artificial, they lack warmth, you can't develop a proper photo you can hold in your hands... Meanwhile the kids chased them.
I'm hearing all the same things about AI image manipulation/generation. Right now we are at the emergence stage, it's going to improve so rapidly it'll make your head spin. Critiquing an image today is just like the people writing off digital cameras for having a low resolution.
Times, they are a changing.

Hi WMax70,
There are no plans for this at present.
Lee

It seems to be triggered by tampering with the v Advanced area in my tests. The key is to use a profile/preset with transparency added correctly. Don't tamper with the bottom area... of course that makes adjustments difficult...

A workaround is possible however if you need to make changes in that section. Go to Matte>Swatches and select the No Fill swatch from there. It will take.

I tend to doubt there are many people who are happier to have their content scaled down smaller than the thumbnail square in order to fit blank areas due to a rotated bounding box. Can anyone think of a situation in which the current implementation is really helpful?
But in any case, I suggested it as an option, which would give users their preference (though perhaps not making developers themselves happy 😑)
Thanks for the link -- that thread seemed to reference a different situation, in which the aspect ratio of the content doesn't match the aspect ratio of the thumbnail. I don't have any issue with the way that's treated currently.

Minor suggestion (for all apps, presumably).
Right now, it appears that the size of the contents displayed in the Layer panel thumbnail depends on the size/orientation of the bounding box, rather than the size of the contents themselves. This can make objects appear to be different sizes when they're not, and doesn't make full use of the space available in the thumbnail display.
For example, create a perfect circle and the thumbnail will be filled with the circle edge-to-edge. Now rotate the circle 45 degrees and the thumbnail display shows a smaller circle, presumably about 70% of its full size.
So it might be nice, at least optionally, to scale the thumbnail to fit-to-contents rather than fit-to-bounding-box. When you're dealing with thumbnails this small, every little bit of detail helps.

Thank you, Lee. Please let me know if using this unintended feature is liable to cause problems, and/or whether I should submit an explicit feature request in the Feedback forum. Among other things, it's a great way to paint clouds. 🙂

Hi Corgi,
The above is essentially an unintended "feature", and as such the tools for it don't exist.
I do however think that it's a great idea to have a gradient editable in the colour chooser and i've suggested this to the devs.
Lee

If you have a clickable scroll wheel on your mouse then you can put the mouse pointer over the Preview drop-down, hold the scroll wheel down, and then flick the wheel forward/backward to scroll through the available options.
(It works for me and I don’t think I’ve used any ‘fancy’ mouse software to make it happen.)
I realise that not everyone has a clickable scroll wheel, or maybe even a scroll wheel, so this isn’t a solution for everyone.
Note: While the Preview field has focus you can also press the up/down arrows to run through the options.