MikeW

If one uses the FX panel, text or otherwise vector shapes will be rasterized.

I *think* the difference you are pointing out is the phase difference. As nothing else I use has that exact (or relevant) corresponding setting, I cannot test. I'm probably wrong. And yes, the point sizes are a little different but it makes no difference if say I adjust either to use the 7.3 or 8 points the other has.

Yes as regards other generating applications such as CorelDraw, QuarkXPress, AI, ID, etc.

One important question would be: What types of books? And I assume you are inquiring concerning Affinity Publisher. I would recommend an attempt to layout one of your completed, most complex books again in APub. That would give you a better idea if APub is at a state ID could be replaced with the type of content you do and what work-flows need adapted (or simply do not/will not work). Doing a real job in APub during your typical process may result in redoing it in ID anyway.

Perhaps you are reading the relevant portions (as well as drawing the proper conclusion), perhaps not... The point I would like to reiterate is why does every other application display its pdfs "properly" (lack of screen artifacts in this case) in Acrobat/Reader and Affinity applications do not if the pdf generating application plays no part in the process? Google's, Chrome's and FF's pdf readers are garbage (so is Preview) when it comes to many pdf constructs that display properly in Acrobat/Reader. They also don't have Acrobat's or Reader's dubious default preference for enhancing thin lines (which I always turn off). I have no idea what the "real" issue is with the pdf. Nor what viewer is being used. I do know the OP is using the Windows version, and so if Acrobat/Reader is being used to view the pdf AND if the issue is this issue of dotted lines appearing pixelated, turning off that preference may/will provide a solution that is acceptable.

The default viewing condition in Acrobat/Reader is to "Enhance thin lines," which is a terrible default setting as the OP's pdf looks like this: If that setting is turned off (which gets reset upon an update), then the OP's pdf looks fine on-screen. However, whether this setting is on or off makes no difference in each of the 3 applications I used to compare with Affinity applications.

That's (technically) true. But the on-screen representation in the pdf could/should be better. At least it is using different applications... 2.pdf

Yes. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Both Serif and users engender such symbiotic interactions. I've been on past forums where one half of the equation does most, or all, the interaction. It doesn't work well for either party.

Can you use Excel or another spreadsheet application and create the numbering you need, export as a text file, then use linked frames?

Serif has always been my gold standard for both support and interaction with their customers. I first became involved with Serif with PPX5 (about 2010), but many people I met online go back to Serif's beginning. While the product looked like it would meet my needs, the deciding factor when I purchased my first license was after spending a couple days on their forum reading posts.

I don't know if formatting will come into Q2019 with the October update from a text editor, but it will bring with it the copy/paste of rtf from Word itself.

From a business POV, if I need a particular function, I consider any time estimation a need to use another solution. Until a software has that particular functionality, and it meets my needs, an estimate/promise is still vaporware. People who don't have more than a single software solution are hampering their revenue potential.

Just a note...QXP, which can currently open IDML files, is adding .indd single/batch conversion with its October update. The bar for what is possible is constantly advancing among other applications.

I personally wouldn't call a 2 gig file a minor flaw. The last image-heavy book I did had 6 gigs of linked files, the working file is 38 mega and produced a 384 meg print PDF. In ID. That's reasonable. And workable.

Well, I think it is (mainly/solely) the way Affinity applications force the use of color profiles at the document level. Especially APub. This issue isn't a problem in other layout software I use. A CMYK EPS is using deviceCMYK. The numbers are preserved and are passed through and it shouldn't even matter if the Acrobat viewing condition (the profile being used to render the resultant PDF) is changed. The only time there should be a color shift is if the EPS file is using RGB color values.