Seneca

I'm not sure what you mean.
 
We don't need a dumbed down version of inDesign. We need a Desktop Publishing application that beats inDesign.
While inDesign may be daunting to you it's geared towards a professional market and we need a professional application to do that.
 
There is nothing near in the market at the moment that rivals inDesign for its depth etc., when it comes to professional publishing.
That's why we need Publisher to rival that and not something that dumbs it down.

Yogi9409,
I can feel your frustration but please stick along for a little longer.
Judging by the quality of the Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, Affinity Publisher should be worth waiting for.
Hang on in there mate.
Regards

Fantastic, thanks.

Apple Macintosh + Adobe Laser Writer + Aldus PageMaker were the pillars of the Desktop Publishing Revolution.
 
This is how I started my love affair with the digital publishing all those years ago and I will always cherish these products and memories.
As far as I am concerned they were great. We can criticise them all we want but they were seminal in this category.
 
Let's hope that Affinity Publisher can push the envelope further, standing on the shoulders of the giants such as Adobe PageMaker, QuarkXpress, inDesign and give the tools the modern digital publishing industry needs today.
 
Hopefully we won't have to wait for it for too long now.  :P

Yogi9409,
I can feel your frustration but please stick along for a little longer.
Judging by the quality of the Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, Affinity Publisher should be worth waiting for.
Hang on in there mate.
Regards

Frankly, I was very surprised that Affinity didn't think of implementing scripting in their applications from the beginning, particularly, since they developed common engine for all applications (Designer, Photo, Publisher) over the last 5 year. Surely, they know how popular it is in Adobe products. I don't want to second-guess why this happened. These guys are smart and know what they are doing. Having said that I would hope/expect/pray, (add your own words) for the following to happen:
 
1. DOM accessibility through a scripting language like JavaScript
2. Affinity to open up their APIs so that other small companies, resourceful users can fill the gap with features that Affinity doesn't want to support.

I don't want to second-guess what the developers are planning to do in this regard.
I would completely understand if they decided that this is a non starter for applications costing less than £40.
On the other hand, I for one, want to use the suite as a complete replacement of Adobe products, but without it it'll be very difficult.
I would be prepared to pay 3 times as much for the Affinity Applications that have these facilities.
Best regards,

Seems like a very good idea to me.
 
It should be in Serif's interest to help migrate the Serif line customers to the Affinity line.

Hello Yogi9409,
Unfortunately, you are wrong. This SerifPlus line was actually not profitable at all. That's why the decision was made to start a new product Affinity.
If you search these forums a bit you will find that (by their own admission) the new line is at 10 times as much profitable and that was even before they decided to develop the Affinity Products for windows.
 
Another reason to not develop the SerifPlus line any longer was a very old code-base, meaning, too much effort would have to be spent to modernise it, so better start from scratch. And so the decision was made to start afresh.
 
Everybody is a bit impatient regarding the Publisher but there is nothing we can do except wait.
Regards

Yogi9409,
I can feel your frustration but please stick along for a little longer.
Judging by the quality of the Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, Affinity Publisher should be worth waiting for.
Hang on in there mate.
Regards

Call it plug-ins or scripts, I would love to see something like that developed by Serif.
I hope that Serif will do a better job than Adobe, though.
 
Quite frankly I would standardise on JavaScript.
It would satisfy both mac and windows users and would prevent maintaining 2 languages by the plugin developers one for Mac and another for Windows platform.

You people have a lot of patience! :D
 
Oki, it was so long that I indeed used a notepad txt to write it... I still have it around, didn't delete yet... But IMO is WAY too much text...Anyway, I evolve my thoughts in a per minute rate... that's why a summary from myself can add new or opposite conclusions, haha :D  .... there it goes (I had deleted it.. You've been warned ! :D  ) :
 
( incoming huge text wall )
----
I have purchased A. Designer without a single shadow of doubt. Will do so with Photo, and will do the same with A Publisher.  The reason for that is indeed related to what I believe a professional needs today, what is already available in several forms, and what seems to be lacking everywhere (at a reasonable price and able to "own" a licensed software copy) at least with the conditions I consider "professional", or better said, the specs one cannot make happen with all other the existing tools, out of the CC suite, of course.    I am not a hobbyist (I am in the sense that I have a passion for making several forms of art since I was a little kid) , but a professional, I work in this and only this, making independent work, not for a company, but have spent most of my professional life working at companies as graphic designer, illustrator and game artist, now being a freelancer. At least to my knowledge and my own experience, we freelance artists and general graphic workers, or just indies, (I mean with indies people making independent projects from which they expect to build a business around, or at least, make it become a very nice part of their income) we do need to at least have the possibility of working with the market's specs/requirements needed, and the export to clients, applications, print, etc, that the market requires. This means: Being able for example to work in CMYK mode (not just able to send to print with a profile, blindly without screen(calibrated monitor) checking or a final proof test as much, like some comparable -and even so slightly more expensive- tools competitors) , export in a cmyk supporting format (psd, tiff, eps, etc), and with the ability to embed a large number of color profiles, as every print company seem to have its preferences, same as ICC profiles for RGB for other type of customers or print companies, and ability to perform image adjustments that allow to achieve an image/ file preparation reaching levels that can compete with professional outputs in other high end software applications.   There are of course issues, I don't deny it as I have been through all the beta forum posts flow specially for Photo, but besides this is completely normal in young applications compared to old legacy largely tested (but indeed less "professional") Serif's older tools, but I've come to the conclusion that most can be worked out with workarounds and graphic worker expertise (meanwhile they get progressively fixed! Patience is key here), and in the worst case (something that happens in  my very case) , these applications can be the final end step in a project: They provide this so key final project refine and export that so, so many other available software solutions do *not* provide. That is, I have NEVER been "one app only" guy in all my ten companies' experience. I can remember tons of cases. Sometimes, doing a fast landscape in Bryce would win by KO to going the slow path of modeling complex geometry in 3DS Max, create during many hours heavy texturing, and then do a slow Brazil or Final render (because of the complex scene!) (even if that's the best path possible among the two). Because maybe we had a freakin' afternoon for that single image. Or modeling with Wings3D (open source tool, can't render or animate and barely texture, but a freaking PROFESSIONAL ;) modeler) the main game character because organic modeling in a raw Max(no plugins) was by the times poorer and slower. Some days was forced to make full video promos with a cheapo video editor that happened to output professional results for the matter, despite Premiere was the mega tool for anything video. I so don't care a bit if I use my open source and some purchased tools in combination with affinity's, covering the weak points of one or the other.  Indeed, THAT is a professional route, at least, that saved the neck of a lot of professional projects in the past, meaning as professional that the big bosses were super pleased later on with our quality, it paid salaries during many years, and products did hit the shelves, like always, sometimes with great luck, some with less, but despite often not being made with the considered the best tool in town, the low sells in some cases where more a case of low promotion, distro politics, etc.   Still, about something mentioned, I would not agree calling more professional someone that is more "obedient" letting persons probably less trained in artistic matters (often, bosses) to decide in many aspects of the graphic production. Specially if the obedient folks are talented, as should be the opposite, the boss, and team should at least listen the skilled people to be able to produce something of real quality in their specific area. I mention it as I have let bosses impose their graphic criteria too much, during years, until the moment I realized letting them then do so was of course damaging my portfolio, but also damaging the whole company and its income. That is also part of being professional, requires being valiant at some points and ready to loose your job (never happened, tho!), and even all this said, IMO there are many different ways of being professional.   The issue mentioned above, of a publishing tool not being able to support 600 pages, yep, that is not professional for certain scope. But we are sadly used to CC and Autodesk suites. They tend to allow to be super professional in virtually any professional activity (at a cost, that's why a lot of people is here, I guess).  A software, for being considered pro, IMO, does not need to be able to function for every possible activity, but an specific range. That is, if allows to do for example gorgeous brochures, small publications but at an excellent quality, for me that is totally professional. Because there are many companies not producing 600 pages publications and still making truck loads of money with brochures, templates, and the like. I am a painter, an illustrator, meaning I work lately mostly on that. A. Photo, judging by its name, you could think is focused on photography editing mostly. Is that all the field in image editing? Absolutely not. They indeed include brushes (and I noticed the scope is a bit wider than just to serve for photo retouching) some tools for painting. Just compare it to the painting applications (or even PS in the latest iterations) like Corel Painter, Krita, or Art Rage has, and there it simply cannot compete, in its painting flexibility and feel. So, if can't output same variety in traditional media, is enough to say it is not professional? :o  That'd be extremely wrong, and I say it while is my darn main field now. Is a professional image editing software. You might have to combine it with an specialized traditional painting tool as much as you could and in some cases totally should combine Photoshop with an advanced batch editing software for large volume of files editing.    That said, I understand that then, for certain workflows is not usable an application that has the limitation that does not allow you to make your own activity. That would be crazy for a company to purchase a publishing software that can't deal well with 600 pages if your every day work, or ocasional but important work is making a publication with 600 pages AND you totally need to decide one or another, haven't got money for both (in my experience, the more, the merrier, just no subscriptions, please, I want to BUY.). Saying though that because it can't do that is "not professional", imo, would be a stretch. I respect it as an opinion, but kindly and totally disagree. Is at most not as capable as say, Xpress or InDesign, but always that allows professional production in other areas , activities, and/or type of projects, it IS professional.   Another example: It could be also that wouldn't allow you to embed 3D  in your PDFs, neither export the document as web file able to give real time 3D preview in WebGL, and for some commercial activities, maybe that export being essential, but still, if it allows working in both RGB (sRGB, Adobe RGB...) and CMYK (using your required profiles) exporting your CMYK PDF/X-1a 2003 in whatever the printing company required profile (coated FOGRA39, US Web Coated Swop v2, etc.) that's still quite professional for me, for so, so many uses and cases, so essential and common to many print workflows. What is more, when you are into real life very complex projects, not even the big names cover all. There's were all my myths (we all have been an app fanboy/girl of some sort at some point) have fallen, as my plate of food was in high risk despite the company using the big names apps. In some cases, even reading all documentation, even the most obscure, asking support, etc, nothing solves stuff, because is a huge unsolved bug. Sometimes left there for YEARS, yep, in the big names apps. You are in the middle of a demo to be delivered next day, your super high end dominant software has a bug no one knows how to work around, but almost 9 times out of ten, you can discover a solution (that you are tempted even to publish and patent, lol) or, a lot of times, realize some other pro knows already as did hit the bug and has posted (maybe a month ago) a way to still do the job in some professionals forum.     For these reasons, I don't suspect, I know AP, AD and surely A.Publisher once out will be fully professional, in what me and my colleagues of many places would consider as such. Probably CC and Autodesk's will be more capable for a certain time (or maybe for ever, that's not a prob), but that in a lot of cases wont refrain a lot of us to do professional work with Affinity's. (maybe for the 600 pages case (though that was said of an old serif tool, will see the Affinity's solution, is way too soon. And imo, one at a time, this way each product will be released better, imo), or long hours of very traditional like painting better done in combination with some other tools (Scribus(publishing), krita, etc)) but again, the term professional is earned already with many of the capabilities and heading these tools have, my 2c.   Edit: Heck, that ended up way longer than I wanted...! Apologies... (I don't expect now anyone to read it, hehe)

Well I read it all. Thank you for putting the record straight as it were.  :)

Seems like a very good idea to me.
 
It should be in Serif's interest to help migrate the Serif line customers to the Affinity line.

No need to manifest your stupidity so quickly.
Mac and Windows users coexist here incredibly well.
Enjoy using Affinity Photo for Windows. 

Hi 00Ghz,
 
Not sure Matt explained where to locate the baby daughter update. It's a new panel located under the view menu - studio and choose baby daughter. 
 
hope this helps, ;)
 
Allan

No, that was a Golden Master.  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :D

No, that was a Golden Master.  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :D

No, that was a Golden Master.  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :D

No, that was a Golden Master.  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :D

No, that was a Golden Master.  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :D

Congrats Matt!!!
And thanks for the update.

When applying shear manually, the shift key doesn't do anything.
I think the shift key should constraint the shearing process in 5 deg. increments the same as when rotating any object.
What do other people think?
Regards

Yogi9409,
I can feel your frustration but please stick along for a little longer.
Judging by the quality of the Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, Affinity Publisher should be worth waiting for.
Hang on in there mate.
Regards

Welcome ucb to this forum as it is your first post, it seems.
 
I'm not sure what your workflow is but as far as I am concerned Designer has almost zero features for what I would consider publishing. Of course, you can combine text and graphics on a page or artboard but you can't even centre text vertically in a text box. Heck, you can't even see the non-printing characters in a typed text. Let me be clear, I am not bashing Serif here at all. They've decided that Designer is not an application meant for publishing. That's why they are developing Publisher for that.
 
As to inDesign, unlike you, I use a lot if not most of the features that inDesign offers. Text variables, automation through JavaScript, nested styles, grep, etc, you name it, as long as it helps produce my documents quicker. I use it for leaflets and long documents like books, catalogues, etc. But is it perfect, absolutely not.
 
And that's why when I heard that Serif was coming out with a new professional publishing software I was very excited. However, my excitement has been tempered of recent by how much their timetable has slipped and by the fact that realistically, for Publisher to compete with inDesign, it may take the Affinity team year (5 or more, a wild guess) before I can use it professionally, I mean fitting it into my workflow. My only hope is that it will be worth the wait.
 
Of course, like everyone else here in this forum, I will be the first to take it for a spin when the beta shows up. I also look forward to contributing my few cents towards making Publisher better and bugs free (in as far as it is possible).
 
Best regards