thomasp

Agreed, would be great to be able to set this as a preference.

It's important to not be too restricted from ground up here (aka not making for example the same limitation decisions as with the APh Macro facility), since the scripting interface could then be used for much more and even new functionality, than the Affinity apps do initially offer themself out of the box here. - As far as one can use external modules, custom I/O and a bunch of other things too on demand. At a later stage for developing interactive GUI scripts, also some access to some base widgets will be needed, which ideally then should follow the Affinity app setup UI style in l&f.
I know you are still at very early stages, but it's better to remind early to keep the interface design as flexible and powerful as possible for future demands!

This is fantastic stuff @Tim France thanks for sharing!

It's hard to tell form those videos what fully going on, but as means of feedback, or a reminder, it would be useful to have access to the file system. I don't know if you'll be implementing just an engine like V8 or an entire runtime like node, but it would be good to be able to read/write from/to the filesystem in order to implement custom importers/exporters

Going on some of the complaints in this forum, it isn't just a matter of translating text files; people often not only complain about the accuracy of translations, but also about how they fit the UI etc. I know someone who is a professional translator, (Swedish/English,) specialising in technical publications, and I can assure anyone who thinks this type of work is easy, that there is a bit more to producing these translations than just being able to speak another language!

Might be cheeky to add this here but I would like magnifying lenses to be added to the ends of the straighten tool.  Handy for precision work on straightening a wide horizon without lots of zooming about.

Finally the Crop Tool will start to feel feature complete and work as it should. Looking forward to the coming patches with the additional changes.

Apps: Photo
Platforms: Windows, macOS and iPad
A number of improvements have been made to the crop tool based on customer feedback:
Crop to selection. If you have a pixel selection active the crop tool will now initiate to be a min fit around the selection you have. After a crop the current zoom level will be maintained (rather than automatically zooming to fit as previously). From various feedback this was considered preferable behaviour and leaving it to the user to choose if they want to zoom to fit after (cmd-0 or hitting zoom icon in the top toolbar of iPad). The Crop tool now remembers the last setting globally, so if you wish to apply the same ratio crop to a number of images it's much easier. You can now drag anywhere on the bounding box edges to resize the crop, rather than having to drag from a handle. Enter as well as Return will now commit a crop Escape will reset the current crop In unconstrained mode, holding Shift will constrain the current aspect ratio and Cmd (Ctrl on Windows) will resize around the centre When you rotate / use straighten feature in crop tool it will now automatically adjust crop box to fit. Please let us know what you think or if you spot any issues or have any feedback on this new behaviour.

Personally I don't view creative app usage as indoctrination. It's a tool to me, like a very good hammer. If I can do the job well with Affinity, if it serves my goals, then I use it. 
Theres been a lot of R&D and $$$ invested into Photoshop, and it's an excellent, industry-tested tool. I just don't like renting it. 

Looking at frustrations in this discussion…
I’d like to add one
Affinity came out,
they had a refreshing approach
that I wanted to support.
After a very frustrating year of beachballs and crashes
with Photo on a MbP, crash reports,
support always looking into it,
I really wanted to pull the plug.
Finally an update which resolved
and proved the issue.
Few reasons I didn’t quit
liked that they were fighting the big guys
too many afPhoto extensions
and no real affordable alternative.
So happy and supportive for what I have.
To be honest, why these memories came back with V2,
Launch 40 off…
and no differentiation for new and existing users.
It’s not the amount that does it
just a bit of acknowledgement for early adapters
will encourage support for Serifs V2 approach,
even beachballs now and then.
Now it’s more like I will stick to V1
which is ok for average use
and if something comes up in time
Affinity or not
I can always decide.
Serif cherish your users!
Don't forget
why many of us chose you. 

I know that Affinity does its own thing, but I see this as a very handy feature from photoshop that makes the workflow so much easier when working with brushes. It feels very alien to keep going to the top bar to make settings and it slows down the development of my work. I don't see it as something impossible to implement, and even though this is a Photoshop feature, it's always great to take the best practices and apply them in your software as well.
Hope to see this feature in future updates. Thanks!

It says in the "what's new" and FAQ that the new and old formats are not compatible.
Usually when file types are not forward compatible (when you break backwards compatibility), the file type name is changed so the two files cannot be confused, like .afphoto2.
It's not great that we can't tell the difference between v1 and v2 files.
 

From Affinity:
If you’ve purchased from the Affinity Store — each time you start the Affinity Store software it will check for updates and offer any available update. The latest update will install over the top of any earlier version, with no need to uninstall. You can download the latest installer by logging into the affinity store here and find the order in your account and use the "Download" button in there. Alternatively, this new release (and previous versions of Affinity Publisher for Windows) can be downloaded from this link. (those installers are NOT for Windows Store purchases).
It says there is a automatic check at startup. Is there a way to disable it?
Please add a way to do so if there isn't. I prefer no automatic established connections from a program. I prefere to pull for updates manually.
 

Windows Firewall doesn't block loopback (localh‍‍ost) communication, therefore the Affinity applications will still work, even if blocked by Windows Firewall.  Other third-party firewalls however can cause issues if they block loopback (or the user blocks loopback).
Therefore, people can block Affinity applications with Windows Firewall, however there will be a few caveats:
1) Affinity programs require outbound internet access the first time they're run after installation – as users need to enter their Affinity ID and password to perform a one-time licence check with Affinity servers and activate the licence.
2) Other functionality that requires outbound connections – such as the Affinity Stock panel – obviously won't work if outbound connections are blocked.
3) If using the MSIX installer (rather than the upcoming MSI/EXE installer), the Affinity application paths have the version number in the path.  This means the firewall rule will only be relevant for that exact version (I.E. 2.0.3.1688), as Windows Firewall doesn't allow wildcards in paths.  Windows Firewall does allow creating rules using an App Package name – instead of a direct file path – which gets around this issue and is how firewall rules are created for Microsoft's own Store apps, however this method doesn't work with Affinity applications (see my previous post HERE).
I'm not entirely sure why there isn't an option to disable automatic update checking from the UI, particularly as MacOS has the option.  Some people don't like applications having internet access unless strictly necessary, however there is another practical reason why some people may want to disable automatic update checking in professional software – consistency.  When doing a large project (for example scanning and restoring a batch of a few thousand photos), a lot of testing and checking will be carried out before starting the run because it's a long, tedious, time consuming task and having to go back and correct any problems is no fun and extremely costly in terms of time.  It essentially becomes a production line and the last thing needed is for any of the programs to update midway through the project and introduce any bugs, inconsistencies or unexpected behaviour.  Some projects may last weeks or months, so it would be useful to be able to turn off automatic update checking in these circumstances.
 

I was just wondering. Who else find it slightly annoying that V2 files are not compatible with V1?
Though I have V2 of the Suite, I'm still working in V1 because of several issues (freezes, get to use to the different interface, etc).
But sometimes I would like to do small things in V2. However, because these files are not compatible with V1 I just stick to the V1 apps.
Is there any chance that in a V2 update this incompatibility between V1 and V2 will be resolved?

A common saying is: "the early bird catches the worm". - Well in IT it's more like: "the early adopter catches the bug".

This x 100

I understand you. You like Version 1 for now and that's enough for you. Then there is no problem. Just use Version 1 of the Affinity apps.
When you are ready to switch to Version 2, then you know how much it costs now. And it doesn't matter what you think about the number of innovations.
The seller has set the price and you either buy and agree or disagree and don't buy. Everything else is air shaking. 

Hello, @thomasp. The launch offer is actually cheaper than the price of the old version.
But, if the new version does not bring you anything, you are not obliged to pay to continue using the old product you bought. That’s why I never rent software anymore (why should one always buy the new version of a product?)
Having said that, I believe that in order to take advantage of the many new features of version 2, you should not consider version 2 as a simple improvement of version 1, but as a new product (it is much more powerful and faster) that you should consider as such and it is necessary to go through training again.

Original price that I paid for Designer and Photo (both Windows) was 39.99 Euros each (looks like this was the regular price back then) and a little under 33 Euros each for the Mac versions a while later (seems like those were discounted). This isn't dawn of time stuff either but rather end of 2018 for the most recent purchases.
Now, one major version later these same number of licenses - if purchased without discount and in the same fashion - would cost me a staggering 84.99 Euros each. Doesn't sound like a particularly modest increase to me. In fact I don't recall ever seeing 'my' softwares increase prices from one version to the next anywhere near these percentages unless the capabilities of the software were totally transformed. Here on the other hand it appears mainly the version number was changed - which is to say: where are the key new features, the slew of bugfixes and the amazing performance gains to make version 1 look like an oldtimer?
What it is is still small fries next to what single seat licenses of Photoshop and Illustrator would have cost before they went subscription. But then those two were shaping up more quickly and at a comparable 8 years of age were already more mature all around if memory serves.
 

Original price that I paid for Designer and Photo (both Windows) was 39.99 Euros each (looks like this was the regular price back then) and a little under 33 Euros each for the Mac versions a while later (seems like those were discounted). This isn't dawn of time stuff either but rather end of 2018 for the most recent purchases.
Now, one major version later these same number of licenses - if purchased without discount and in the same fashion - would cost me a staggering 84.99 Euros each. Doesn't sound like a particularly modest increase to me. In fact I don't recall ever seeing 'my' softwares increase prices from one version to the next anywhere near these percentages unless the capabilities of the software were totally transformed. Here on the other hand it appears mainly the version number was changed - which is to say: where are the key new features, the slew of bugfixes and the amazing performance gains to make version 1 look like an oldtimer?
What it is is still small fries next to what single seat licenses of Photoshop and Illustrator would have cost before they went subscription. But then those two were shaping up more quickly and at a comparable 8 years of age were already more mature all around if memory serves.
 

Those would look great in the Develop Persona as a color grade tab, like photoshop camera raw filter. 

Some group items and their possible alternatives are displayed logically - that is, the group item (with a small triangle), and then its individual items.

But some items are completely illogically in reversed order,

or even completely chaotic.

 
Setting up the Toolbar is thus quite demanding and laborious, because it is not clear which of the items can possibly be grouped and which cannot.
Therefore, I am asking for a logical and unambiguous arrangement of the items that can be grouped, and possibly also for their visual differentiation/grouping, so that it is obvious at a glance which items can be grouped and which cannot.
Thank you.

There's too many bugs that hang over from version 1 to version 2 for this to have been a significant rewrite of the core code... those kinds of hang overs shouldn't be there, really couldn't be there, if it was truly a significant rewrite of their "platform".
Perhaps a more modest summary might be that they're using a new UI system that's more holistically capable across all desktop platforms, hence the loss of Separated Mode on a Mac, and the new UI.
 
 

Why is that even in there? Who went "here's a brilliant idea, let's waste the user's time by forcing them to wait on a beachball for each and every settings change"?! WTF. I wish upon that person zero trusts in their farts for the rest of their life.

V1 was such a promise when released. It got better over the time. But it still has issues (not regrarding missing features but issues with, in my optinion, the base). All those issues got tested and reported by user in detail. It was explained what is wrong and why it matters. There was hope that Serif fixes those issues with V2.
Now on V2 trial the hardware acceleration got optimized. But that's it. All the other base issues are all still there in V2 - and there is no roadmap. No way to know if Serif has interest in fixing something or not.
I fear, Serif is now in "feature hell" - more, more, more features because maybe their managers think they need features, features, features on the launch page. So, new features are there - great. But on top of the old issues now there are new bugs and some new features are only half baked.
I think, a lot of users who send those detailed issue reports, did not do that because it's their hobby to complain in forums, but because they use the software for some reason and are happy to acts as "free of charge beta testers and suggestion makers". I think they are interested in Affinity becoming a "real new standard" (which, in my opinion V2 is not).
I personally am already laughing when a moderator writes "we logged it with the developers". Without a roadmap this means nothing. I read it as "yes, it's a bug, yes it's a limitation, yes, it's a hindering the workflow ..., maybe we solve it, maybe not." V2 seems to be an indication that "we solve it not" is the more often used solution.
I use V1 and like it. But investing more time in testing and bug reporting for V2 is not what I want to do, after learning that Serif likes to consume this free service of mine but does not give any feedback in form of a roadmap.
I thought the affinity solutions would become the suite to replace my Lego box of softwares (open source and commercial ones). But for me V2 indicates this is not likely to happen.
Maybe Serif is in a "jack of all trades but master of none" dilemma. And maybe they sell to cheap to fund the ressources to become the "real new standard".