loukash

Oh yeah! I don't think I've even muscle-memorized it myself yet.
And I stopped counting all those accidental "v" being inserted in my text frames…
Esc is a special function key, and as such also globally reserved for specific use when applied without a modifier. I'm not surprised at all if your idea doesn't work as you've expected.
That's definitely an unfortunate UI omission. A search field has already been requested many times.

That's exactly how I see it.
Applies to me as well – back in the day I did my first designs with FreeHand 2 on a Macintosh SE with a tiny greyscale display...
We've come a long way since then, but – as we see – there's still some way ahead.

Ah, that's because this is my "workbook" document, and there are other random objects on the spread unrelated to this example.
It is really happening in just one text frame with ASCII characters and text styles only.
All right, here you go:

apu_fake_underline_style.mp4 You can use any character and any font you want, but using the "Low Line" from the same font is obvious and probably most predictable in this context. Avoid hyphenation of those underlined words. If you have to hyphenate, insert a second underline and adjust manually again. Not sure why the Tracking value effect stops at "-500‰". There's probably a reason, but I'm not a font designer to understand all the details. (You can also use Kerning with the same -500‰ limit when applied directly in text, but it won't work when saved as Text Style.)

This is something I used to use a lot when I used Macromedia FreeHand (before Adobe bought them). In FreeHand I could take a say three strokes with different colors, assign it whatever attributes (all matching aside from color) I wanted then have then select all three and say make a gradient. I could assign the number of steps in between each original stroke (again they all had to match) to make a custom gradient that I could edit the shape of. See Attached. Also a warp tool for vector shapes or vector groups. I know there is a skew feature, but that doesn't always work.  I'd like to be able to use say the node tool on a group and using a modifier key let me do basic bending of an object. 
Gradient_Feature_Request.pdf

The UI is totally confusing because switching the two buttons does absolutely nothing unless you actually change the profile while staying in the same color space. (The buttons are also pointless if you change the color space because then it will always convert.) It took me quite a while until I've figured it out, after reading a couple of posts on this topic here on the forums.
In general, color handling in Affinity is "well meant" but an utter mess…
Speaking of global colors, if you'd ever need to batch convert a long list of standard swatches to global without wanting to develop a carpal tunnel syndrome from rightclicking each swatch one by one, you might enjoy my little external macro example here:

ade_km_macro_make_global_swatch2.mp4
^ This is a Keyboard Maestro macro. My "move mouse" distance was incorrect though, should be "19", hence a couple of "missed" swatches in the video.
More on that in this thread:
 

This is sort of a follow-up to some of my posts (ff.) in the "Can anyone recommend an acrobat pro alternative" thread.
I have now made a few apples-to-apples comparison tests on how exactly Affinity (Designer 1.9.1, but it affects all three apps) handles PDF/X-3 and X-4 export when it contains vector objects and text with transparency or transparent gradients. Then I have used exactly the same vector and text objects with exactly the same values in Illustrator CS5 and exported ("saved as", in fact) as PDF/X-3 and X-4 as well. In both cases I was using strictly the default export presets.
To sum up in advance:
PDF/X-3 export from Affinity under these given conditions is absolutely pathetic. Sigh…
Original files:
Exhibit 1: transptest19f27.afdesign.zip
Exhibit 2: transptest19f27.ai.zip
Both CMYK with Fogra27 profile for consistency. Note that the AI gradient algorithm doesn't exactly match Affinity's – don't know why, I'm not a mathematician – so the appearance is slightly different but that's beside the point here.
For illustration, here's how the documents looks like:


 
PDF/X-3 export:
Exhibit 3: transptest19f27-x3-ade.pdf = PDF/X-3 export from ADe
Exhibit 4: transptest19f27-x3-ai.pdf = PDF/X-3 export from AI CS5
The difference how each app handles transparencies is striking:
Affinity rasterizes everything underneath a transparency to a flat pixel layer. Only in some instances it at least tries to do the right thing, i.e. converts e.g. text to curves and uses those as a vector clipping mask for a pixel rectangle instead of attempting to anti-alias everything as a plain image:


But the other image layers usually look like a screenshot, only worse, because screenshots are usually losslessly compressed whereas Affinity's default PDF/X-3 preset "allows JPEG compression" with "quality 98" – which sounds like a lot, but it will introduce JPEG artifacts when applied to vector objects. And not to stop there, if there's a transparent gradient involved, it "forgets" to apply anti-aliasing to the text with transparency underneath:


And as if not enough, even though black is set to overprint in the PDF/X-3 preset, the part under the transparent gradient does not respect it and partially knocks out CMY which means the colors of the "overpri" part are incorrect:


  Illustrator is smart enough to dissect (boolean divide, I guess) each object underneath a transparency into common "denominators". Where possible, it will retain every single piece as a vector object, thus retaining full scalability without artifacts or anti-aliasing. Where not possible or too complex, it will create simple bitmap image rectangles using the exact gradient involved in that area, then use the original vector curves (or text converted to curves) as a clipping mask. (There are multiple nested clipping curve instances "just in case" or something.) No jagged or antialiased edges whatsoever. Black text overprint consequently respected, even in those clipped parts with pixel gradients.
Here the PDF/X-3 as exported from AI CS5 and reimported into ADe for inspection, where I have disabled some of the clipping paths for demonstration how the pixel gradient rectangle looks like:
 
Frankly, the "Affinity way" frustrates me.
PDF/X-4 export:
On the positive side, in my very example the PDF/X-4 export looks pretty good.
Exhibit 5: transptest19f27-x4-ade.pdf
Exhibit 6: transptest19f27-x4-ai.pdf
Conclusion:
Sadly, for proper PDF/X-3 export when transparencies are involved, InDesign or Illustrator will have to remain part of my workflow for the time being, for as long as I haven't moved to MacOS Catalina and beyond:
design/layout in Affinity export PDF/X-4 place in InDesign or Illustrator export PDF/X-3 ~~~
Serif, please fix it!
thanks

If I'd need an editable mask on an infinite canvas, I'd do something like this:

aph_infinite_mask.mp4 This is just the basic concept, but with the linked layers and the "remote" placed on top, you can also work around the lack of transparent red overlays etc. etc.
Note that the "remote" is only needed for as long as this annoying flaw/bug of multi-nested layers being hidden remains unfixed.

Please do not create or duplicate new requests, add your voice to existing requests instead:
forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?search/&q=checkerboard background&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy
To work around the missing feature, you can always add a simple background layer with any pattern you like:

Save the Pattern layer as an Asset to reuse it in new documents. Copy it to a Designer document and save it there as an Asset as well; it will work even though Designer doesn't have a "Pattern Layer" feature.
On Mac, there is also a possibility to replace the default checkerboard.png and checkerboard_big.png files with your custom PNG patterns. That's what I did. Here's how, but you should definitely know what you're doing when performing such "hacks", so proceed at your own risk…
 

A MacOS Automator service plugin/workflow, programmed by yours truly:
“Activate All Affinity Studio Panels”
FAQ:
What does it do?
It contains a nifty AppleScript code that goes through the menu View > Studio, checks for all panels without a ✓ check mark and activates them all at their respective last position (if any). That's all. Why does it do that?
Because otherwise you'd have to repeatedly open the menu and the submenu again and again, activate each panel one by one. Which is – pardon my French – a major p.i.t.a. As in, literally, a pain in the arm. Been there done that. How do I use it?
Upon installation in ~/Library/Services (see included ReadMe) or in /Library/Services if you want to activate it for all users, you can run it from the Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher menu > Services > Activate All Affinity Studio Panels. You can assign a custom keyboard shortcut via System Preferences > Keyboard > Shortcuts > Services. Heck, you can even disable it from there if it annoys you. (But why should it? Hey, it's a Good Thing™!) It will only do its Good Thing™ while one of your Affinity apps is running frontmost. Should you accidentally launch it while using another app, it will only inform you that it can't do anything. Can it do any harm?
I don't think so. But if you're paranoid, open the *.workflow document with the Automator app and see for yourself. It's open source. What does it cost?
It's free as in beer. That is… feel free to contact me if you'd like to buy me a beer. I won't say no! Where can I get it?
loukash.com/download What's there?
You'll be able to download a file named "Activate_All_Affinity_Studio_Panels_v1.0.zip". Inside the ZIP archive, there are two files:
• Activate All Affinity Studio Panels ReadMe.pdf – which you should read, obviously…
• Activate All Affinity Studio Panels.workflow
That's all. My website runs on Wordpress, so it will automatically attempt to set a few cookies. Feel free to reject them. Enjoy!

Hm, I bought the Affinity apps as soon as they came out, but I have barely used them until only last year when I decided to invest time to learn and understand them. That investment has paid off: now I know Affinity almost inside out in my sleep. And I wonder how I was doing all those things in InDesign & co., haha.
If it's a bug, then yes.
(Who's betting on a staff reply that it's "by design"? )
Besides, we're in the Feedback forum, so staff will unlikely chime in.
Fair enough: I don't, when it comes to design. And that's definitely been "by design" for the past 33 years.
Recently I tried with an old buddy, but it didn't turn out well because I found his INDD document structure completely illogical and time wasting, and he then didn't appreciate my "remix" to work with either. Too many of old "solo designer" habits on both sides, I guess.
But even then, as an active musician I have decades of experience what it means to work in team (bands): You always have to set up certain rules and common ground that everyone involved will follow. In advance. (Yep, we should have done that with my buddy, too.) Even if you play free jazz…

Another workaround: simply remove underlining from letters with descenders. This might sound fiddly, but it could be easier than some of the other workarounds.  It would also preserve the underlining/gaps if the words are restyled.
John

^ That all said, there are of course many issues with masks and mask layers that desperately need to be addressed…

Hi, I created a new empty pixel layer and filled it with black. I painted a few circles in white with the Paint Brush tool. I applied a Motion Blur Live Filter at 270 degrees (6 o'clock position), maximum radius.

I then applied a Perspective Live Filter and dragged the top handles closer together and the bottom handles apart, to create a light beams effect in the shape of a fan. This worked perfectly.

My problem is that I can’t repeat this. I’ve tried many times, in the same file and other files and cannot get the same result. When I try to manipulate the handles of the Perspective Live Filter, I can't get the same light beams effect - I can't stretch them or fan them out. 

If I copy and paste the Working layer, it works fine. If I try recreating this in the same file, or a different file, it doesn't work. I did manage to replicate this once, but I've no idea what happened differently. Affinity Photo crashed just after this!

I've noticed that the layer thumbnail on the Not Working layer shows the white circles, while on the Working layer they are not visible on the layer thumbnail, yet they are visible when layer visibility is turned on. Does this signify something?

I have attached an afphoto file with the 2 layers, appropriately named – “Working” and “Not working”. Each layer has what appear to be identical Motion Blur and Perspective Live Filters.

What am I missing? Any help or explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Affinity Photo v1.9.2.1035

Windows 10.0.19042 Build 19042

affinity photo problem.afphoto

Hi,
very nice trick !
Have a look at the "source" and "destination" modes.
the "not working" shows that the whole document is used as source, whereas the "working" is using only an smaller area around the white pixels.
Best practice for projection is to first set the source nodes, then the destination nodes.


 

Yes, via Layer Effects.
Something like this, perhaps?

Hi,
 
check my file below.
you can copy the PT filters from it and paste it into your file.
The "lupe" shows:
black: alpha = 0 white: alpha = 255 red: 1 <= alpha <= 254  
The "remover" boosts partial alpha to 255, based on the input parameter (use the slider to adjust).

 
ghost.afphoto

Been trying to see if i could import a gradient swatch that i had custom made in the swatches panel into a gradient fill in the FX Layer Effect - i would love to see a drop down arrow selector that would then display the custom gradients from the swatches.

Thank you so much. That is really helpful and so is the critique. The reason I wanted to put them is to make the objects stand out better as this menu is to be seen through a window from the sidewalk 14' away! So I just made a new layer and on that layer I put all my drop shadows that I wanted, the way I wanted them, by hand! Much quicker, easier, and organic.
thanks again, everything you said is helpful
Plymouth Outside Menu 5-11-21.afphoto

The software generated shadow effect was incongruous with the hand-drawn design, but the hand-drawn shadows in the most recently attached file look great to me.

Well, that's literally what having full control of auto adjustments is about…
(my PS is in German only, back in the day Adobe didn't sell multilingual versions)

The thing with slices is that they will export as individual files. If you need a single multipage PDF file without resorting to third party workarounds or reimporting e.g. into Publisher and then reexporting, "page" artboards are the way to go.
Also keep in mind that trying to create slices from the scratch si a p.i.t.a. because they won't snap.
If you've exported as PDF/X, editing in Preview will break it. Unless you save using the pathetic built-in PDF/X-3 filter.
But anyway… that's what I meant above with:
 

Nowhere. Seemingly it's meant to be some kind of artificial "intelligence" at work. (Scare quotes apply.)
This being the reason I've never even used those "auto" adjustments yet…

Technical issues aside:
From a design point of view, those shadows don't make sense. They look unnatural; a gimmick.
As in: If you'd made a drawing on paper, there would be no snippet "levitating" above either…
@Bynah, your artwork looks much better without all those shadows!
(Heck, been there, done that as well, like 20 years ago when all those effects started to appear in the pro design apps. Eventually it wears off…)

Add used colors shuld add colors to liblary as global colors, other way it is useless >> I have colors without info - connection to objects, so I now that color is used in document but I dont know where ??

Lets say I am cutting out a golfer so I am zoomed into the face.  Now I want to view the entire image to see how things are looking.
Now I want to go to the previos "view".
Yes, I can create a view but the means every time I move to a different part of an image I have to create a new view.  That is probable more cumbersome than just zooming every time.
I guess what I am looking for is a way to toggle to the previous view and back,  I don't remember where, but in one of the previous drawing programs I've used that required only a simple keyboard shortcut.