User_783649

@Sean P I have to say that I experience the exact same issue using an Apple Magic Mouse 2 (where there is no option, as far as I'm aware, to change the polling rate) when testing @Alex M's file 'Performance Analysis 2.afdesign', in fact with all the files posted.

Hi Alex M,

Thanks very much for your indepth report! I'm glad you've partially solved your issue and the performance is now much better for you.

Interestingly I myself was getting some lag when dragging an asset onto a page (specifically my Windows machine), however none of my other computers or colleagues were able to reproduce it so I'd put it down just an odd configuration.

After reading your last response below you reminded me that I'd recently upgraded my mouse from a standard MS Wired USB Mouse to a Wired Razer Deathadder V2. Looked into Razer Synapse and noticed my polling rate was also 1000 - dropping that to 125 instantly made the lag when dragging an asset go away.

However it has only ever been when dragging an asset out that I've noticed it - everything else seems to be ok (including your files!) on Windows. Unfortunately Razer haven't released Synapse 3 on macOS which means I cannot use my mouse/change the polling rate to test your documents with that. However I do have a Logitech G203 Lightsync currently on its way so I will give that a go when it arrives! In the meantime would it be possible for you to attach a quick video demonstrating the slowdown with 500 vs 125 - simlar to the video I've attached below please? Once I've got a bit more information from myself I will get getting it reported to development.
USBPollingRate.mp4

Partially solved!
Turns out it was polling rate of my Logitech G102 mouse which I set to 500 once and used for years without any issue.
Once I set it back to default 125 via Logitech Gaming Software – all low performance issues are almost gone.
Affinity apps now work much smoother and layers with lots of text are moving way better. Not ideal but really better.
It is still strange to me that only Affinity apps seem to struggle from high mouse polling rates. 
Adobe Photoshop was fine with either 500 or 125.

And to the question of this whole topic. Is Affinity Designer even developed anymore?
My answer is yes. It definitely is.

And honestly, for the last years they’ve done inifinitely better job than Adobe.
With far less resources and marketing but with way more passion and dedication.
I see it and I feel it in their apps.

Serif took courage and had rewritten their apps from the ground up in order to make them better and faster.
I believe in this company. I believe in their team.

Thanks for correction @Komatös
What I wanted to say is that you need to make your layers smaller in order to see the issue. Largest of those values should be less than 10px or so.

So are you gonna mark this as bug, or should I uninstall this and move back to Illustrator? I need a TIFF with bleed, and it won't export. JPEG bleed is also white.. WTF?
It's SUCH A PITY I've invested hours into learning this app, instead of AI... Now I have to invest hours into learning that too. How can I do my work and make my $ with this app when I can't do simple things like a bleed export.. Don't tell me the option is there in export persona, to simply export extra white pixels..
Edit: Happening with Artboards only. A 2018 thread was found with this issue. Fixed back then, seems to be back now. please PLEASE fix bleeds as they are important for printing.

@Alex M @Komatös
Thank you both.
The size I tested was a very small size, and the larger the size, the more stable it seems to be divided.
However, unfortunately, if you add again after division, it will not be added completely and a border will remain.

@Komatös Try scaling your group so it is <10px width and height, for example. And then try Divide again.

Can confirm this issue on macOS as well. It only happens when objects are relatively small in size. And on bigger objects result is good.
I tested with Force Pixel Alignment setting on and off. Turned Snapping on and off.
Seems like there's a precision or rounding issue which prevents small objects from being calculated and rendered correctly when using boolean tools.

And to the question of this whole topic. Is Affinity Designer even developed anymore?
My answer is yes. It definitely is.

And honestly, for the last years they’ve done inifinitely better job than Adobe.
With far less resources and marketing but with way more passion and dedication.
I see it and I feel it in their apps.

Serif took courage and had rewritten their apps from the ground up in order to make them better and faster.
I believe in this company. I believe in their team.

All this, and more. My main process to make certain overlays required simplifying curves, but they completely broke the tool so anything you wish to simplify produces awful geo and removes way more points than necessary, even more points than what's required for the shape. Stuff like that really turns me off. The feature was fine, no one asked to change it, and instead of making the program better they just made everything worse.

Thank you for these words @Sotalo

That is exactly my experience with Affinity suite as well.
After more than a decade spent in Adobe suite for me it’s like entirely new wonderful world full of new possibilities.
Lots of things I get used to previously and thought that it’s normal now feel stupid and simply weird.

Seamless transition between personas and apps, whole non-interruptive workflow is one of the reasons I switched comlpetely.
Everything seems better for me in Affinity suite overall. Not completely bug-free, but overall experience much, much better. I'll never come back.

I’m also with you in regards of subscriptions. For last years Adobe products have been stagnating. Whole forums full of bugs, rants, hopeless requests. Lots of unsolved core problems, including legacy code, performance issues and more. Lots of small bugs being introduced and reintroduced with every minor update. Again, again and again. Sometimes I feel like there’s no QA at Adobe at all. I could literally feel the pain that all these people were experiencing because company was totally ignoring them for a long period of time.
I remember how people were asking for artboards in Photoshop. For five years or more. And then Sketch appeared on the stage. Only after this they started doing something in this direction. They made XD. But it is a joke app. There are important feature requests that are four or five years old as well. No one cares at Adobe. But they made 3d transforms, voice control and other fancy stuff. Because it's cool, right?
There are lots of similar examples. I’m just tired of all this nonsense.
I just don’t understand why I should continue paying monthly for software that progressively becomes worse and worse, slower and slower. Just let me use the version I'm okay with forever and stop charging me at all once you fix all your issues. No, you can't stop paying us. You loose all access.
This whole last year of Photoshop updates, for example. It’s a complete disaster. They finally started to change their GPU code because suddenly they realised that OpenGL is being deprecated. Apple warned about this many years ago. Guys, there’s Metal you know. Hurry up.

Adobe definitely had time and resources to carefully plan and implement all the changes in separate internal beta branch without breaking core releases every month. Lots of people were affected by this and many other issues.

And now they’re removing 3d completely because it became too hard for them to support it in modern operating systems as they say. I believe they just want all you to purchase a couple of another subscriptions to Substance. More subscriptions, more money!

There were times Adobe was focused on professionals. But they are gone now. Now they turned to younger audience who’s just starting out. With all these fancy features being added all around like replacement skies and neural filters. One-button quick solutions. Don't think, it's already here. Just press this and that. Cool, right?
It’s not surprising to see there’s no more focus on performance or other important things.

And I can understand this. There are way more beginners than professionals. Beginners are easier to handle. They’re not demanding anything serious like pros, they’re easier to manipulate. It’s easier to explain them, that something is done “by design”. They're less sceptical and easier to impress.

And maybe that’s fine and good for Adobe we know today. As we all see they doing incredibly great in terms of revenue.
But seems like they just don’t care about pros anymore.
That's why some of us switching and looking for alternatives. And I'm very happy that companies like Serif exist.

Really? How long do you think professionals are going to put up with not having vector and raster together? How long will they put up with performance decrements and stagnating features? How long will everyone continue to stay behind the times?
Sure, there's no doubt in my mind many professionals will pay the Adobe tax and buy into the idea that a print shop doesn't know how to print a PDF. They might also believe the best photo editing experience is Photoshop and the best vector experience is Illustrator because that's all they know. They can continue to believe that. But they're wrong. I edited all my photos for my blog in Affinity Photo with better results much faster than I could in Photoshop. I handled all my scans in Photo and some image tracing in Inkscape, and the results are better than I could hope for attempting to do the same thing between Photoshop and Illustrator. I do all my vectors in Designer, and layouts in Publisher, and everything links beautifully. Everything I do personally is 100% Affinity or free software, and I'm getting better results faster than I ever could with Adobe. Despite decades of experience in Adobe, my training in Adobe, my whole life in Adobe, a year with Affinity made me turn another leaf. I will never draw in Photoshop ever again, I will never vector in Illustrator ever again, I will never do any layouts in InDesign ever again. Professionals can continue to be stubborn, My work will be better and easier.

If you work at an industrial capacity, the price is not a problem. But most creatives do not drum up enough business to warrant the price. I'm talking the kind of people who go to Michaels and purchase beads and leather string to make a bracelet. Also, students, and the recently graduated. Plus, the fact of the matter is I had a better drawing experience using Krita, a free program, than I ever had in Photoshop. And Affinity Designer allows the blending of raster shading with vector linework, NOT A SINGLE Adobe program is even capable of that. Not unless you want to consider Photoshop and Indesign's HORRIFIC pen tools a "vector editor."
For many years Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign were the holy trinity of desktop publishing. You did your photo manipulation and corrections/editing in Photoshop, your logo and vector design in Illustrator, and your layouts and publishing in InDesign. And for many years that was the best experience, and the features added to the capacity: Illustrator got a 3D perspective grid to assist in 3D views for, say, a cityscape. And Photoshop got quick select, a tool that made me wonder how we ever lived without. But then those features died: perspective, of course, was very difficult to use, Illustrator is not Sketchup. And truth be told, my experience with Affinity Photo is so smooth and clean that I don't often find the need to use selections to make spot changes. The developing process for full photos is extremely fast and clean, the need for constantly selecting and masking adjustment layers goes way down. For everything, Affinity is just better.
Photoshop has plateaued to the point of death. The newest big feature, "Neural Filters," which are still in development, do exactly the same thing Affinity Photo is already capable of doing, but even faster with even better results. Noise reduction? Come on. I can get amazing noise reduction in 1 second just dragging one slider in Affinity Photo, and it doesn't just blur everything like Photoshop. And yes, when Illustrator had those buggy issues I wasn't able to do what our business needed. I had to load in a very large 4800x3000 image to manually go over in vector, and the program just kept crashing. Then the simplify tool obliterated all my geo so I couldn't use my normal workflow anymore. Compared to Affinity Designer which I have some rather complex pieces with tons of layers, vector layers, and lighting/shading and adjustment layers stacked on top and in-between each other and aside from some slowdowns changing the views, the program I purchased for $25 runs more reliably and with better features than Adobe Illustrator, which requires a monthly donation to Adobe so their dumb teams can continue to wreck themselves.
So, to be clear, I position Affinity in a much higher order than Adobe right now. It does everything I need better than Adobe, and there are workflows and processes that are literally impossible to accomplish without it. And to the dumb team developing Adobe, if they really want to fix the stubborn attitude of the decades-old program that we've since moved on, charging $53 a month to get rid of the percentage slider and ruin features is not the way to do it.
But seriously, even a free vector program like Inkscape has image trace. There are just a few nit-picky things in Affinity's suite that block workflows, and if those things were changed it would be perfect. And I don't think these things are that difficult to implement. Redrawing a selected line to fix it? Copy+pasting in individual channels for mask export for games? Allow us to position images for print? Small nitpicks, but a good enough selection to completely block utility of the program. I now have it in my process to take my images to Inkscape just for the image trace, and then take that back to Affinity for everything else. If Serif doesn't have enough money for better development, at least let me buy a plugin so I can do this now!

Literally the only reason people are using Adobe is because these programs have been grandfathered in. I played with Photoshop 7, trained on Photoshop/Ill/InDesign CS3 and I used Illustrator CS2 onward, and got invested in the CS5.5 and CS6 suites in college, but Affinity blew them all away. If desktop publishing started today, there's no doubt in my mind everyone would be using Affinity and Adobe would be laughed out of the room. The saving grace for Photoshop is actions. Illustrator's saving grace, I guess, would have to be effects. Plus the stability of these programs when going to print. But Affinity's workflow is much better, and I feel it's inches away from rendering Adobe completely and totally obsolete.
File versions don't matter if the program is inexpensive. Adobe Photoshop Professional alone used to cost over $1,000. For that price you can buy the entire Affinity suite several times over, it's no wonder people were pirating Adobe. They got complacent. They felt they're the only option. They set up a ridiculous certification program with minor tweaks every year to sell educational instruction books every year and quit perpetual licenses so they can rake in more money every year. They thought they could get away with it. They were wrong.
I want to see Affinity where they rightfully belong. Fixing these little things will push them over the top. And if they want to create brand new versions, go ahead. I'll pay $55 for a program that crushes Adobe. But not unless they fix the things that actually need fixing. Not just a hobby program, but one that really sticks it to Adobe.

Adobe used to sell perpetual student licenses: I paid $600 for the student version of the design bundle CS4, and that was acceptable for commercial work. But I noticed something odd: the new versions from then on didn't add much new features. Maybe one good new feature in Photoshop per year, and that's fine because most of it is backwards compatible. But InDesign would totally break compatibility. Illustrator too, if you actually use one of the major features every release.
Fact is if you made something in InDesign years ago and your business switched to a continual license, you will no longer be able to use the perpetual software anymore. Something you totally got incorrect, Adobe is forcing people into subscribing to software that used to be sold for a one-time fee. And do the programs work better? No. 90% of what I use in Photoshop and Illustrator I can get in Affinity, and most of the stuff I love about Affinity, Photoshop and Illustrator were never and will never be able to do. Adobe is grandfathered in from decades of being an industry leader, but at this very moment they aren't leading. I updated Photoshop and lost features, how are they still in the lead? Only because everyone uses them. Only because InDesign files totally break compatibility with older versions, even within the CC suite. Adobe was a leader with perpetual software for years without issue, now all of a sudden you're telling me there will be issues with perpetual software. WOW. FYI, I purchased Affinity a year ago, the whole suite for $75, and I'm still getting free updates without issue. Adobe would never.
The problem is everyone considers Adobe the default, and it shouldn't be that way. CS6 brought content aware fill nearly a decade ago: that was the last major improvement to Photoshop. A free plugin for GIMP. Now their best new feature is neural filters, inferior to Affinity in every way. The only other changes beyond that were decrements, some of which brought the program to a screeching halt. Adobe plateaued in an industry that is continuing to tower over their shoulders. Respect should be given to those who earn it, and Adobe 100% totally lost mine. If Affinity gets support for actions, plugins, and fixes a few of the workflow issues, they absolutely will destroy Adobe. Like I said, professionally, I don't really need much. Professionals need Adobe mainly because other professionals use Adobe. Not because the program is totally superior. The Adobe house is falling. Once Affinity's few issues are fixed, designers will realize they need to get out of the sinking house and get a new one. I wouldn't mind paying $200 per program if it can totally replace Adobe. It does 90% what we need it to do. But that remaining 10% is the problem. Affinity is not there yet, but I really want them to be. My side business is 100% Affinity and it's been a really good experience.

That clip to canvas when using artboards, never worked. It's ok when using with simple documents. Bleed is an important part as if you don't have it, your document will have white edges after print.. So it shouldn't be white.. If it's white, then why have it in the first place?

I've posted this in the FAQ section but got no Mod to look at it and report it. But when you create a new artboard+bleed and fill w a color, it fills visible area only, bleed remains white. I've noticed this after latest Designer update.
MBP 16", AFAIK working OK on M1 macs.