@michacassolaI mean this completely in an informative manor, and I want to be clear that if it comes off as condescending, I do apologize, but i don't think you quite understand affinity and some of the aspects in the development of Software, and just absorbing another separate application is not the way to do it.
One of the things they are aiming for is fluid work flow. Given the work done on StudioLink, i would say they are doing this through the development of GUI and function modules that work together on a universal canvas core.
It would be a lot harder to pick apart and Frankenstein together code from an application that was made completely outside of the affinity dev environment, then it would be to glue all the internal tools together to get 90% there, with the last 10% being the development of the animation only tooling.
Modularity is a tangle of a beast in software development when it comes to high performant applications, and you can't just slap any old code together. I mean, you could, but maintaining and optimizing such a codebase would be a nightmare.
It would be like trying to assemble clockwork from multiple manufactures of clocks. It could be done, but each creator would have been working off different tolerances, core components available and personal preference, and the end result would be something that ticks, but not very efficient or accurate.
If they did develop an animation application (Affinity Cel. Just putting that name idea out there :P) It would have to build on and work with the prier core canvas and tooling modules. There would also have to be a lot of work done on getting all the prier modules ready for on-the-fly rapid rendering, especially if they want to stick to StudioLinks fluid and interchangeable workflow philosophy.
I will say, however, looking at the performance of affinity at the moment on complex files, I would say animation grade performance is very much in their grasp already.
