Ben

Right now, you could try reducing your layer count by combining vector objects into single curve layers. Do it using the boolean ops, don't create a live compound.

Turns out this is because your document creates more than 8000 layers in the PSD. PSD puts a soft limit of 8000 (though the file format should be able to support up to 32767). Affinity 1.7 (when it is released) will put a limit on exported layers and warn you if you exceed the limit. Any layers above 8000 will just not get exported. In order to avoid the limit, you might have to restructure your document - merging vector layers, etc. This is not something we will do automatically for you, because it would be too subjective.

These features in Publisher Beta will be the same as what you'll get in Designer 1.7 Beta. "Snap off-curve handles" is essentially replaced by "Align handle positions using snapping options". This just means turn on snapping for off-curve handles, using the same snapping methods as curve nodes. That was my compromise for people who insist they need handle snapping (not just angle constraining and construction snapping). The "Perform construction snapping" option turns on all the special angle and length finding features I demoed earlier in this thread. That will add snapping for both nodes and handles (see the demo videos).

Could you explain what you mean? You mean you want to see the ruler origin lines, like as a guide?

Oooh. Don't look too closely at Construction mode - that was a prototype that has (accidentally) been left in. It might make it into 1.7, as long as it gets some approval here. I'll go over it some time, and explain it to you all. Essentially, it's a feature that allows you to add construction points, lines and circles to be used in snapping. I thought it was particularly handy for the Pen and Node tools, to help project snapping in a more advanced way. I started by working out how I'd create a tangent at a mid point of the lines between two handles... it kinda grew from that thought.

Thanks @SrPx It's a bit of a two-edged sword. Having us (the devs) contributing directly on the forms means you get accurate responses. It's not going to get any better than from the people writing the software. But, the number of threads is going up and up, and we only have so many hours in the day. Speaking for myself, I monitor threads that are closely related to stuff I'm working on, and any bug threads that get reported to me internally. It's just impossible to read everything, so I don't. Beyond that, we have some very reliable guys, like @MEB, that are very knowledgeable, and also refer stuff to the devs when necessary. As for manners, yes - anyone that really wants something looking at is more likely to get our attention if they start off on the right foot - we don't take too well to abuse or accusations of being unprofessional. It's always going to be frustrating when that one bug gets in your way - but think how frustrating it is for us too. We take a great deal of pride in our work, so bugs are taken seriously. But, there are also priorities, and as a new user you won't have the bigger picture. Some longer standing users/forum members probably have a better idea if they've followed a lot of the main threads.

These arguments seem to be becoming circular. Let's be clear - Publisher is in its infancy. As Patrick has said - we need to spend time putting in the core set of features that most people would expect. The vast majority of Publisher users will not be ex-PagePlus users. Any time spent now on an importer is going to be of no value to them, and will be at the expense of features that everyone would use. Since Publisher does not have the set of features supported by PagePlus, what would an importer give you right now? 50%, 40%, 30% of the features required to make an import meaningful? So, we give you an importer now that transfers only the features we have. Are you going to be happy with the outcome, or are you then going to start asking for other features to be added that are required to import your old PagePlus document? Where does it realistically end?? Most of the arguments being put forward for a specific importer over a PDF (or other) migration seem to rely on higher level features. Right now you have a working solution - you can carry on using PagePlus to maintain your documents. That has not changed in any way due to the release of Publisher. Anyone moving from Windows to Mac also is in no worse situation than they would have been if we had not released Publisher (so I don't see that as a valid argument either). As Publisher matures, I would have expected users to author new content in it, supported by the features as they become available.

Yeah - those icons have now been relabelled - "Edit ruler origin", "Edit guides" an "Edit grid". Should be obvious that they are toggled. Also - the ruler origin widget (which is enabled by the toolbar button) allows repositioning, and snapping (using the usual snapping options). As for editing from the ruler top-left box - someone might have a look at that later. But, for now, you have the ability to perform the task - while not as optimal as some might like, how many times do you need to change the ruler origin??

Thanks, @hperticarati I've not been keeping an eye on this thread so much (because I'm so busy writing code). Yes - this thread is intended to discuss the things I've been working on for 1.7. Unrelated suggestions and requests are just going to get lost. If you have a specific request - put it in it's own thread. Otherwise, don't complain when you think it's been overlooked or forgotten when it appeared on page 19 of 27 in a monster thread for an unrelated subject.

That would depend on whether the Affinity user base (that already covers three platforms with two well reviewed applications, and mostly occupies the top ten slots in the Mac App Store) is larger than the PagePlus user base. We are not pushing the Affinity brand on the back of the Plus brand. Word of mouth about Affinity is already out there for a large number of people that had never heard of the Plus range. If anything we've been very careful to explain that Affinity is not a continuation of Plus. It's an entirely new entity.

Then you are missing the advantage of this. We have written our new code base to be largely platform agnostic - that is the point of cross-platform - not just that the software appears on different OS. That means we are no longer tied to the whims of a vendor OS. Only the UI layer is platform specific - and changes to that are less impactful than reengineering core code that relied on vendor SDKs (such as MFC, for example). All the internal workings are fully independent of any OS - written in lean C++. So, when an OS drops a bombshell on us, and we have to roll with it, the underlying workings of our tools and file format don't need to change. That is future proofing. And, as for Apple compatibility - The Apple user base is very significant when it comes to creative software. Other big players seem to think so too. Historically, apps like Photoshop were primarily Mac driven. This is evidenced by the fact the PSD file format is Big endian, where Windows OS was always little endian. Ironically, Mac OS also now is little endian since the move to Intel - so the PSD format is saddled with the legacy overhead of supporting long obsolete hardware.

Cheers.

How would other publishing programs make this situation any different? You may decide on another package, but you would be overlooking the core reasons we began again in engineering the Affinity suite. We have certain features that are not found elsewhere - such as our true single file format, full-scale support on iPad and being cross platform. We also aimed to redefine some tools since we were not bound by legacy requirements. So, we've tried to put innovation first where we could. Something that would have been impossible if all we had done was update an old application. If we succeed with Publisher as we have with Designer and Photo, then why would you want to look elsewhere anyway?? Everyone may feel sad that the Plus range is coming to an end, but a lot of what drove that decision was beyond our control. The fact is that the way people use computers has changed rapidly - the hardware people bought and the way they acquire software. We had to look at emerging markets - iOS being a very big one. Continuing with the old software model would only have gone on so long anyway - the net result would likely have still been the end of the Plus range, but without Affinity to offer an alternative future.

Speaking as the person who wrote the PSD import/export code for Affinity - I can tell you that was a MAMMOTH task, and one that will never be complete - it has already taken up a huge part of the development time over the past six years. It is also the most contentious since it is almost impossible to do a perfect round trip import/export via a third party editable file format. But, PSD is probably the most used third party file format for us, so made the most sense to put the effort into supporting it to the degree we have. Now, in terms of our user base of the Affinity range, the percentage of people wanting to import PagePlus files compared to other formats is probably low. If we did write an importer, we'd open ourselves up to demands for it to be accurate to PagePlus, even though it would be impossible to do a one-to-one import of some features. As has been said before - the Affinity code base has been written from scratch. There is no shared code with the Plus range. To this end, it is no different to the software being written by a completely different company. The amount of work to support import/export of what is effectively a non-native file format is very significant. Another thing to take into account is that PagePlus is effectively becoming a legacy format. The code was written for an OS and style of application that is becoming outdated. It also would not have been possible to port the code to accommodate platforms such as iOS in the way that we have achieved with Affinity. This means that in future only existing user of PagePlus will be creating content in it. That user base will naturally shrink. It also means that the future requirement for a PP importer will become less and less. Compare that to an importer for a third party format that is staying "current" - you can see where the effort is better spent with regard to the wider user base of Affinity.

It's not a bug - we just don't do snapping to geometry (yet). We only snap to curve bounds. So, when you combine geometry, snapping will then only apply to the bounds of the resulting item. This means it is currently not possible to snap to geometric elements inside of a single curve object.