JET_Affinity

I think, what you are asking for is 'custom corner options'. Then everyone can design their's own corners (and perhaps share them, too).
d.

First, I completely disagree with your "single page" constraint. Back in the day, that was the knee-jerk outrage of Adobe Illustrator devotees whenever a FreeHand user dared suggest that many, if not most, illustration projects ( logo designs, business identity documents, projects destined for vinyl cutters and other NC machines, package designs, bottle labels, trade show displays, garment imprints, and countless other things) involved more than one sheet and that those sheets need to be independently sized and oriented.
Try taking away that program's typically late-to-the-party multiple Artboards ability from the same naysayers today.
So that aside,  do you not consider "artwork and illustration" inclusive of, say, commercial product renderings (cutaways, phantom views, parts breakdowns, assembly instructions)? My toddler grandsons' animals books are all about illustrations and chock full of floating callouts. Later, their Tinker Toy assembly instructions will be, too, along with assembly leader lines. That will continue as they mature toward instructions for Erector Sets, installation sheets for their faucets, maintenance manuals for their cars, and sales brochures for the motorcycle of their dreams. It's all the same core functionality.
Again, take a look at other mainstream drawing programs. Canvas's Annotation Notes feature. Corel Draw's and Designer's Connector Tools, and Inkscape's Diagram Connectors, (among others) are neither inappropriate nor obtrusive.
Raster auto-tracing is an example of the kind of standalone feature (not to mention amateurish bad practice) that can be easily "outsourced" to a separate program in the workflow of an illustration project. But connector lines are by definition functionally attached to individual objects within the native environment of the illustration in which they reside. Saying they should be created by use of a separate program is like saying dimensions of a floorplan should have to be added after-the-fact in a separate program.
And again, their use is not limited to network diagrams for the IT department.
JET

I'm not saying modal dialogs are desirable if they are better avoided. I'm saying that Illustrator is replete with archaic modal dialogs, but even in spite of that, its transform tools still provide the greater functionality described and presents it more concisely.
JET

I'm just not finding that to be the case.
I'm an illustrator. My interest in scripting is not just a glorified macro; I use Javascript to programmatically draw things.
I'm not a programmer per se, and don't play one on the internet. But I've been able to accomplish profitable things with JavaScript in surprisingly short order and with quite productive results:
FlashScript interactive simulations which replicate the behaviors of real-world mechanical systems (multiplex wiring, regenerative exhaust systems, air brake systems) for training. A whole library which effectively adds important missing features to AI, including a set of non-modal palettes for facilitating axonometric drawing in any isometric, dimetric, trimetric orientation. Similar interactive axonometric tools by using Javascript to manipulate SVG in ordinary HTML. Integrating Javascript into FileMaker Pro calculations to build interactive axonometric "visual calculators" that run in FileMaker's WebViewer objects. I quit expending energy developing AI-specific Javascripts the instant Adobe started its Captive Customers scheme. But found it easy to lateral my developing Javascript familiarity from FlashScript to so-called ExtendScript to plain vanilla Javascript in HTML, and even into FileMaker Pro. I did all the above without reading tomes on Javascript. I've done it by just learning the basic syntax logic on W3C, looking at a few examples, and referring to the program-specific Object Model documents.
Looking to do similar things in Inkscape meant getting familiar with Python.  I've expended way too many hours of precious little spare time reading various Python books, starting with downloading the resources that have to be installed on the machine, dinking with the command line interface, yadda yadda. While there's nothing "difficult to understand" per se, I have yet to accomplish anything actually useful with it, don't find it any more intuitive than JavaScript, don't particularly care for its sensitivity to white space.
Can I do it? Sure. But I've already found the afore-mentioned ubiquity of JavaScript across platforms and disciplines advantageous. I have yet to see any compelling reason to "start all over" with Python, other than it's been adopted by Inkscape for developing extensions. But that already seems more cumbersome than what I was doing with Javascripts for AI. (And yeah, I know this is mainly just a matter of my familiarity.)
Again, I'm not the expert in this. But every time another language comes along, its devotees start over-evangelizing it as a replacement for everything pre-existing, and frankly I've grown weary of that over the last few decades. It's not that I have anything "against" Python. My own daughter-in-law uses it for various things (mostly related to gaming). But I also don't see JavaScript "going away" by any stretch and even in my modest experience, I have had much opportunity to appreciate its general versatility.
So, for what it's worth, and since we rather presumptuously seem to think the Affinity Team's decision is going to be driven by a "scripting election" in this thread, my vote is for Javascript--and a very thorough object model document. Seems a safe bet to me.
Oh...and having abandoned MacOS almost two decades ago, and despite being an avid FileMaker Pro devotee, I have no more use for scripting anything with a proprietary language prefixed by "Apple…" than anything strictly proprietary to Adobe.

 

But Ben is “someone from Serif”! How better to show that you’re listening than to respond to points raised? 

Especially when trying to develop something innovative as opposed to just more "me, too; same ol' same ol'",  solid foundations have to be laid for what users consider "basic things." I have plenty of "me, too" programs. I don't need another one.
If all I were seeing in Affinity were just another "me, too" approach, I'd just yawn.
Who's not "letting" you?
Fact is, B13eL's post that started this thread was just a useless, unproductive rant. It doesn't even mention any capabilities he's (she's?) so upset about.
And your "fanboy" nonsense is just a childish insult to fellow users who don't agree with you.
No one "prevented" either. And no one is prevented from disagreeing with them.
Resorting to ad hominem insult is a dead giveaway of weak argument; and a sure way to lose respect.
JET

And anonymous childishly insulting forum participants will be insulting.
I never made apologies for being a fan of things worthy before "fanboy" became a cliché internet insult, and I still don't. So for the record:
I'm an unashamed, outspoken, T-shirt wearing "fanboy" of KTM motorcycles because they're great motorcycles. That neither means I don't have my pet peeves about them, nor that I don't wish KTM would hurry up and develop what I know would be a "perfect" bike. I'm an unashamed, outspoken "fanboy" of Serif for what it's doing in plain sight with the Affinity line. That neither means I don't wish it would do some things in ways I know would be better, nor that I wouldn't love to have it all done today. The accusation of this thread was that Serif is "not developing the product." I make no apology for calling that utter nonsense. The proof is openly visible to anyone who actually bothers to investigate the progress before posting rants and insults.
By the way, Affinity Dev Team, where do I get the T-shirt?  (Take all the time you need. You know; 10...15 minutes.)
JET

Again, a topic conjures up fond memories of FreeHand.
FreeHand had just one kind of text object. It could be set to auto-expand horizontally (i.e., becoming functionally equivalent to a so-called "art text" object in other programs) by simply doubleClicking the right middle handle. It could be set to auto-fit its contained text vertically by doubleClicking its bottom middle handle. The text objects could be bound to and released from paths (instead of being treated as a separate "path text" object). They could be threaded, whether bound to a path or not. They could be set to auto-expand when bound to a path, thereby preventing the problem of accidentally truncated text in complex maps, as is so chronically common in maps built in Illustrator.
This is conceptually parallel to the fact that FreeHand also never had any need for two separate selection tools. Its single selection tool enabled you to edit paths at the whole object level and at the node editing level. That elegant interface design made path drawing far less tedious, more fluidly efficient, and more powerful than any drawing program that insists on following Adobe's hideous model of two primary selection tools.
Macromedia finally gave in to ill-advised "demand" from Illustrator users to add a second pointer tool. When added, it provided absolutely no additional functionality. It was literally nothing but an accommodation to Illustrator-habituated users who just refused to learn that it was absolutely unnecessary. FreeHand users simply ignored it. It was not until FreeHand's very last version that its white pointer did anything that the black pointer didn't, and even that was a minor detail that could have been implemented without adding another tool.
Despite Illustrator's two selection tools (three, really, when you include the ill-conceived "Convert AnchorPoint Tool")--actually because of it--Illustrator to this day does not "know the difference" between a path being selected at the object level versus merely having all its AnchorPoints selected. This causes all kinds of silly inconsistencies such as being unable to use the Break Anchor Point command when all of a path's Anchor Points are selected. (You have to unintuitively de-select at least one Anchor Point for it to work.)
Because object selection is so bedrock foundational to an object-based program, its tedious effects "cascade upward" throughout the program's interface. In a nutshell, it's what makes working in Illustrator feel as frustrating to beginners as trying to eat spaghetti with a single chopstick.
It's because Illustrator's white pointer behavior is conceptually "upside down" from intuition. It's the selection tool you have to use to edit a path.  But its first click always selects the most "internal" sub-part element of whatever construct you are trying to manipulate. Rather than intuitively selecting an object of interest and then "digging down" to its subparts with subsequent clicks, Illustrator's scheme first selects some "molecule" of the object of interest and requires use of a modifier key and subsequent clicks to "back out" of it to each next higher level.
It's metaphorically like getting up in the morning and needing a pair of socks. So you intuitively try to open your sock drawer. But your hand passed right through the closed drawer, and the only thing you can grab is a single thread of a single sock. So you have to then use both your hands to select a single sock, and grab again with both hands to grasp the folded up pair. All this "Bizzarro World" behavior instead of simply opening the drawer and grabbing the pair of socks.
The beginning of the end of FreeHand was not the Adobe acquisition. It was when it started to emulate Illustrator's hideous interface.
Unfortunately, because things like selection tools and text objects are foundational to the program built upon them, I'm sure it's too late to back-track the existing conventional-wisdom (i.e. "like Illustrator") in either case. But I say again: If you want to build a better drawing program, Adobe Illustrator is not the program to emulate.
JET

You just need to enable "Show axis editing handles" on the Grid and axis manager.  You'll then be able to see the grid origin widget, which will allow you to quickly set the origin intersection of the three planes.
 
Beyond that - as @JET_Affinity says - you'll need to get your head around why non-iso axonometric grids only have one common point between grids for the planes.  If considering a cube - you'd need to place the origin at the most prominent point of the object.  As you cycle planes - that point will remain constant.
 
In future the axonometric features will be improved.

Agree. EVERY vector based drawing program should provide for user-defined ruler scales. There is no need for any CAD related "apologies." User-defined drawing scale is just as basic to general-purpose illustration for print, signage design, whatever. I've been saying this for decades.
And it's yet another no-brainer, low-hanging-fruit opportunity to exceed the archaic functionality of Adobe Illustrator.
JET

Believe me, I understand the need and the concept. But let's not set our sights too low. As far as programmatic selection features, I will never be satisfied until I see something at least match the elegance and power of Macromedia FreeHand's Graphic Find & Replace palette, which did far more than Illustrator's anemic Select Same commands and far more than you describe. It could find user-specified combinations of attributes and, when appropriate, within user-defined ranges. And not just styling attributes. The list of combined possibilities would be very long to list, so by just one example: Beyond finding mere stroke weight, it could select path lengths within a user-specified range.
Much of the time and tedium I spent writing Javascripts for Illustrator was to make poor-man's substitutes for some of the functions for which I most often employed FreeHand's GF&R.
But frankly, I think "global swatches" is the more appropriate way to do this. Again, I'll refer to FreeHand. To users first accustomed to FreeHand, Illustrator's whole "Global Swatch" thing was just one of many needless stumbling blocks. In FreeHand, every Color Swatch which the user took the time to store in the Swatch Palette was functionally "global." And why wouldn't it be? Why would I ever want to define and name a Swatch that I could not use to programmatically update objects to which it is already applied?
FreeHand's treatment of this gently but effectively enforced a much needed measure of organizational discipline as the user worked. Knowing that Swatch edits updated objects to which it was applied, intuitively trains the users to define a differently named Swatch (even if it was of the same color values as other Swatches) for objects which should, for any reason, be treated separately in terms of color. That's a simple matter of duplicating a Swatch and changing its name.
This largely prevented the common beginners' bad practice of just applying colors willy-nilly, and then wishing they hadn't later.
JET
 

Believe me, I understand the need and the concept. But let's not set our sights too low. As far as programmatic selection features, I will never be satisfied until I see something at least match the elegance and power of Macromedia FreeHand's Graphic Find & Replace palette, which did far more than Illustrator's anemic Select Same commands and far more than you describe. It could find user-specified combinations of attributes and, when appropriate, within user-defined ranges. And not just styling attributes. The list of combined possibilities would be very long to list, so by just one example: Beyond finding mere stroke weight, it could select path lengths within a user-specified range.
Much of the time and tedium I spent writing Javascripts for Illustrator was to make poor-man's substitutes for some of the functions for which I most often employed FreeHand's GF&R.
But frankly, I think "global swatches" is the more appropriate way to do this. Again, I'll refer to FreeHand. To users first accustomed to FreeHand, Illustrator's whole "Global Swatch" thing was just one of many needless stumbling blocks. In FreeHand, every Color Swatch which the user took the time to store in the Swatch Palette was functionally "global." And why wouldn't it be? Why would I ever want to define and name a Swatch that I could not use to programmatically update objects to which it is already applied?
FreeHand's treatment of this gently but effectively enforced a much needed measure of organizational discipline as the user worked. Knowing that Swatch edits updated objects to which it was applied, intuitively trains the users to define a differently named Swatch (even if it was of the same color values as other Swatches) for objects which should, for any reason, be treated separately in terms of color. That's a simple matter of duplicating a Swatch and changing its name.
This largely prevented the common beginners' bad practice of just applying colors willy-nilly, and then wishing they hadn't later.
JET
 

I won't. And I doubt that Serif is offended by my saying that, because...
Serif is changing the 2D graphics game in many ways, a large part of which is cost and value. That in itself is a long overdue aspect of innovation in this software segment.
I've long held that the historic "big four" of the 2D vector graphics world (Illustrator, CorelDRAW, Canvas, FreeHand) are grossly overpriced for what they are. Their vendors desperately cling to an outdated pricing model that stems from the heady days when it was all a major paradigm shift. But that was almost four decades ago. I see Adobe's take-it-or-leave-it subscription licensing scheme as a manifestation of that desperation.
Many product categories enjoy "they'll pay anything" pricing when new technology disrupts whole industries. But fervor settles as the new way become the new standard. I remember paying $650 for the first HP color inkjet DeskWriter. That's CMY. No K.
Competition is what gets prices back in line, and 2D graphics, much as we love it, is not rocket science anymore. Goliaths do fall when they can't conform to the times. Serif seems to know what it's doing in more than just coding very promising software.
JET

It would be worth it.
First, it would be a functional advantage over Illustrator's Transform Each dialog. There have been user requests about this and similar omissions for years on Illustrator's user forum. One of the annoying things about Illustrator is that some of its modal dialogs provide percentages, but not fixed values; others vice-versa. Some of these are obviously due to a feature being added, without updating a similar long-preexisting feature.
Second, it would makes further use of Affinity's superiority in using math expressions in value fields.
JET

I won't. And I doubt that Serif is offended by my saying that, because...
Serif is changing the 2D graphics game in many ways, a large part of which is cost and value. That in itself is a long overdue aspect of innovation in this software segment.
I've long held that the historic "big four" of the 2D vector graphics world (Illustrator, CorelDRAW, Canvas, FreeHand) are grossly overpriced for what they are. Their vendors desperately cling to an outdated pricing model that stems from the heady days when it was all a major paradigm shift. But that was almost four decades ago. I see Adobe's take-it-or-leave-it subscription licensing scheme as a manifestation of that desperation.
Many product categories enjoy "they'll pay anything" pricing when new technology disrupts whole industries. But fervor settles as the new way become the new standard. I remember paying $650 for the first HP color inkjet DeskWriter. That's CMY. No K.
Competition is what gets prices back in line, and 2D graphics, much as we love it, is not rocket science anymore. Goliaths do fall when they can't conform to the times. Serif seems to know what it's doing in more than just coding very promising software.
JET

Not sure I'm understanding the seam allowances, but I suspect that's addressable by keeping in mind:
You can set the stroke's alignment to centered, inside, or outside before expanding it. So that should be useful for specifying an offset distance on either side of the base path. After expanding the stroke and releasing the compound as mentioned above, you now have two separate paths. So you can repeat the process for either of those paths: Give either of them a thick stroke Set it to centered, inside, or outside Expand the Stroke Divide Using Expand Stroke for this is, of course, what I'm confident will be just a temporary workaround until Affinity acquires a proper Offset Path or Contour feature or a more fully-featured implementation of vector Brushes.
It's just an educated guess, but I rather suspect that one reason such features have not yet been added is because the developers are aware of the problem that an inelegant number of nodes are created whenever paths are expanded and Brush paths are converted to outlines. (A problem I've seen in early releases of other programs, too.) I assume they are closely related functions. That's what I sometimes refer to as multiple similar features probably sharing the same  functional "foundation" when impatient users complain about what seems an obvious feature "omission." I'm confident the Affinity devs intend to get the underlying foundations optimized before building a bunch of features onto them, and applaud them for that.
By the same token, for example, I'm confident the devs are aware that the result of Expand Stroke on a closed path results in a compound path, and therefore the Release Compound command should work on them instead of using the Divide Boolean button. But presently, Release Compound is grayed out after using Expand Stroke on a closed path.
Affinity Designer is still very much a work-in-progress. But it's a game-changing bargain for what it already delivers and so far, we're not being charged for significant improvements between integer updates, such as those presently being developed toward the 1.7 release. For the price of the Affinity apps, we're getting a lot of value. So I have no problem cutting the development program some slack as the applications continue toward a more full-featured state.
JET
 

That is precisely NOT what I was saying. That's what "balance" means.  We realise that both old and new customers want the same things.  So, features that existing customers want will also appeal to new customers.  You need to understand that it is those new customers that are essentially funding the continued development that you expect.
While filling out the road map, we also need to keep a firm eye on the changing world, and look to add features that will set us apart.  If we stop innovating, we will stop attracting new customers, and the development of the features you want will also stop.

Obviously, we have to consider new customers.  We don't have a subscription model, so if we don't get new sales - existing customers don't get updates either.  There is far too much overlooking of "basic" features that we have added.  It's so easy to spot the few things we haven't yet done, and ignore the many things we have.
 
We have refined many tools in 1.7.  There are a lot fo internal changes - many that average users will miss, but professionals and experienced Affinity users will spot.
 
There is a balance that we need to strike.  Refining existing tools, adding people's wish list for replicating tools from other apps, and most importantly innovating and moving software forward.  As @JET_Affinity says - what's the point in us just cloning your other favourite software??  You probably already own/use that anyway.  And, as I've said many times in the past, if all you want form Affinity is a cheap clone version of Photoshop or Illustrator, you are going to be disappointed.

AffinityBrah,
After Expand Stroke and flipping the Fill and Stroke:
Select the black pointer. Click the Divide button in the control panel. This releases the compounding of the two paths. Now you have two individual parallel paths that you can style as desired.
JET

Exactly. And that's the misconception that is so pervasive nowadays; that isometric drawing is nothing more than just distorting a plan view into "30° angles" and extruding it into blocky shapes.
I blame that largely on two things:
The misappropriation of the "isometric" term by those creating old-style aliased computer game artwork using a 1:2 rise-to-run pixel grid (which is neither isometric nor dimetric; it's just an arbitrary oblique). The nearly complete absence of features in the vast majority of mainstream vector-based drawing programs expressly supporting axonometric drawing, ever since the advent of the "desktop revolution" in the mid-80s. The latter is an ironic and tragic pity, because:
Axonometric drawing is, by definition, a 2D drawing discipline; and one every bit as venerable as the 2D converging "vanishing point" perspective still universally taught in common art classes. Axonometric drawing is applicable to all styles of commercial illustration. It is not just apropos to the purview of mechanical engineering departments. 2D axonometric drawing is no more "obsoleted" by 3D CAD than  2D "vanishing point perspective" is "obsoleted" by 3D artwork modeling programs. Mainstream Bezier-based drawing programs are 2D drawing programs used for all kinds of commercial illustration. Mainstream Bezier-based drawing programs do, in fact, provide the geometry necessary for axonometric drawing; their interface design just tends to hide it. The result is three and a half decades of neglect of one of the most important 2D drawing disciplines by most of the largest vendors of ostensibly "wide based" commercial illustration software. That's three and a half decades of software advancement and users' potential for skill-broadening fun and profit already lost.
JET
 

Especially when trying to develop something innovative as opposed to just more "me, too; same ol' same ol'",  solid foundations have to be laid for what users consider "basic things." I have plenty of "me, too" programs. I don't need another one.
If all I were seeing in Affinity were just another "me, too" approach, I'd just yawn.
Who's not "letting" you?
Fact is, B13eL's post that started this thread was just a useless, unproductive rant. It doesn't even mention any capabilities he's (she's?) so upset about.
And your "fanboy" nonsense is just a childish insult to fellow users who don't agree with you.
No one "prevented" either. And no one is prevented from disagreeing with them.
Resorting to ad hominem insult is a dead giveaway of weak argument; and a sure way to lose respect.
JET

Especially when trying to develop something innovative as opposed to just more "me, too; same ol' same ol'",  solid foundations have to be laid for what users consider "basic things." I have plenty of "me, too" programs. I don't need another one.
If all I were seeing in Affinity were just another "me, too" approach, I'd just yawn.
Who's not "letting" you?
Fact is, B13eL's post that started this thread was just a useless, unproductive rant. It doesn't even mention any capabilities he's (she's?) so upset about.
And your "fanboy" nonsense is just a childish insult to fellow users who don't agree with you.
No one "prevented" either. And no one is prevented from disagreeing with them.
Resorting to ad hominem insult is a dead giveaway of weak argument; and a sure way to lose respect.
JET

Especially when trying to develop something innovative as opposed to just more "me, too; same ol' same ol'",  solid foundations have to be laid for what users consider "basic things." I have plenty of "me, too" programs. I don't need another one.
If all I were seeing in Affinity were just another "me, too" approach, I'd just yawn.
Who's not "letting" you?
Fact is, B13eL's post that started this thread was just a useless, unproductive rant. It doesn't even mention any capabilities he's (she's?) so upset about.
And your "fanboy" nonsense is just a childish insult to fellow users who don't agree with you.
No one "prevented" either. And no one is prevented from disagreeing with them.
Resorting to ad hominem insult is a dead giveaway of weak argument; and a sure way to lose respect.
JET

Same as everyone else fanboy, scroll to the bottom of the store homepage and pick a size
https://affinity.serif.com/store/

Pivotal? Hardly. There a several third party autotrace applications available, which work fairly good. Copying/importing those results to AD is easy.