JET_Affinity

But not really surprising, given that many of Adobe's graphics apps (including Photoshop) were acquired.
One of the advantages of the Affinity platform is that all three of its "legs" (raster, vector, assembly) seem to have been conceived and are being developed together as a cohesive platform, not as a mere marketing bundle of separately-developed (or acquired) programs. The "integration" (something Adobe has always loved to banter about) is deeper than mere interface window dressing.
Which is why I tend to "weep and moan" whenever I hear users demand conforming to the "mean ol' levee" of Adobe Illustrator, the interface of which is more twisted than the Mississippi. There are straighter (and more elegantly integrated) paths to the needed functionality, if we can just afford the dev team time to consider them, and offer our input (which the dev team seems refreshingly open to) with some appreciative civility. (Alluding to other threads, not this one.)
JET

For perspective:
Illustrator's "isolation mode" did not appear until CS3 (2007). If it's such a 'deal breaking, bedrock essential basic' feature (just like everyone's pet feature request is), how did anyone use Adobe Illustrator for the two prior decades?
I paid $50 for Affinity Designer. You know how much money I spent on Adobe Illustrator prior to 2007?
My use of Illustrator's Isolation Mode is only occasional. And I certainly don't judge any program that doesn't have something like it "unusable."
JET

Thanks for this! These are the things that "keep me up at night."
JET
 

Click here to download the latest beta
Status: Customer Beta
Purpose: Features, Improvements, Fixes
Requirements: A valid product key (for Affinity Store purchases), or an installation of the full retail version from the Microsoft Store

As this is a beta it is considered to be not suitable for production use. This means that you should not attempt to use it for commercial purposes or for any other activity that may be adversely affected by the application failing, including the total loss of any documents. We would recommend using beta builds on copies of your Affinity files, not originals. Also files saved in 1.8.0 are not backward compatible with 1.7.3. 
We hope you enjoy the latest build, and as always, if you've got any problems, please don't hesitate to post a new thread in this forum and we'll get back to you as soon as we can. Thanks once again for your continued feedback. 

If you have a general question about the software, please head over to the Questions Forum, or if you have any suggestions, please head over to the Feature Requests forum.
Fixes
Fixed reordering two similar items on Appearance panel mixing incorrect state Fixed text frames with arrow head strokes being permanently applied Added ability to snap along curves in Node tool Fixed break curve Fixed Assets getting stuck on drag out preventing other assets from being dragged Added Stock Panel Added option to use bleed of embedded Affinity document Improved performance of selections with huge numbers of objects Improved PDF import support for DeviceN bitmaps based on LAB colour space Improved PDF export of clashes between bitmaps with/without k-only Fixed PDF export "Rasterise nothing" allowing through bitmaps with alpha channels Switching to a mask node will now automatically switch to the grey colour slider Fixed spell checker identifying numbers with other characters as incorrectly spelt Fixed crash importing PSD files containing embedded colour profiles with unicode characters in their name Fixed Open Folder in Explorer to be disabled for documents with no path Fixed crash entering Export persona under specific circumstances Fixed Path text crashing / hanging with certain fonts Improved performance of PDF import with groups containing more than 5,000 children Fixed OpenType that could fail to apply 'liga' near end of line Fixed Text Justification to split ligatures correctly Changed PDF export Web preset to embed all fonts (many browsers don't support ligatures unless the font is embeded) Improved PDF import matching of unknown fonts Fixed misaligned text editor in Export items Improved performance of subsequent view changes after opening the Export persona Fixed crash loading customer's file Fixed export properties not getting saved Fixed tools disabled when starting the app with hidden UI Fixed unable to alter Mask's visiblity options in Export Persona Reimplemented the HSL filter's HSV option Added ability to drag and drop layers from one document to another Added resize gripper to status bar Improved reporting of file load errors (could previously report file corruption incorrectly) Fixed failure to import customer's WMF file 1.7.3.481 release notes

They also had vector displays on computers in the early days, with no such limitation (CRTs but with lines drawn by a beam moving from coordinate to coordinate).  These were still around in the 80's (some video arcade games used them). Other vector devices, like plotters, also have a long history. I think the first vector graphic program I used was "Y-up"; Zenographics Mirage, on DEC VAX systems (ported to early PC's in the mid-80's). I think you're right about screen coordinates being based on the raster scanning order of CRT's, but I still find it annoying  -  especially as someone who draws lots of graphs where I'm plotting Y-up on a Y-down page....(which means arsing around if you're doing this programmatically )

And it does in SVG, and therefore in Inkscape. But I'm not saying it should in Affinity Designer. Because unfortunately, Descartes's grave was desecrated by the graphics industry long ago. So everything's just a scattered mess anyway.
Go try and tell your trig or calc professor (or your HP graphing calculator) that the Y axis origin should be at the top of something called a "page," and therefore vertical values should increase downward. But that's what has happened to vector-based graphics programs; something that is by definition math-coordinate driven.
The root problem is, Affinity Designer should be an illustration program first and foremost, and a proper Cartesian coordinate system is what should be used in all such programs. But that's not Serif's fault. That ship sailed with FreeHand. (It was actually merely run aground by if-you-can't-beat-'em-just-buy-and-discontinue-'em Adobe.) And somewhere around that time, Adobe also flipped the Y axis in Illustrator to assuage uninformed demand from users who don't know Descartes from Adam, and it and everything that imitates it drives me freakin' nuts.
Related: Even before inverting Y, Illustrator's single Artboard was always inexplicably created at the center of the program's limited pasteboard. And it still is, and that's one reason why its page handling was (and still is) far more cumbersome than it should be. FreeHand's initial default page was properly created at the lower left;  in other words, at the origin of its proper Cartesian coordinate system. So added pages proceeded sensibly without, in effect, wanting to waste half or three-quarters of its limited pasteboard.
A vector based drawing program (or CAD program) should, by default, have its X ruler at the bottom of the screen, not at the top, and positive Y values should increase upward. But if Serif had done that, there would be a firestorm from users who now think Y values increase downward, just because they do in a web page—and Adobe Illustrator.
It's too late for this issue. But please, for everything else going forward, let's just forget Adobe Illustrator so that vector-based drawing can actually move forward.
For example: If vector-based drawing ever does get out of its Adobe-esque doily drawing doldrums, one thing we might find of interest is the feature that has long existed in Canvas for directly plotting curves by formulae and function. Guess what kind of coordinate system that feature uses.
JET

And it does in SVG, and therefore in Inkscape. But I'm not saying it should in Affinity Designer. Because unfortunately, Descartes's grave was desecrated by the graphics industry long ago. So everything's just a scattered mess anyway.
Go try and tell your trig or calc professor (or your HP graphing calculator) that the Y axis origin should be at the top of something called a "page," and therefore vertical values should increase downward. But that's what has happened to vector-based graphics programs; something that is by definition math-coordinate driven.
The root problem is, Affinity Designer should be an illustration program first and foremost, and a proper Cartesian coordinate system is what should be used in all such programs. But that's not Serif's fault. That ship sailed with FreeHand. (It was actually merely run aground by if-you-can't-beat-'em-just-buy-and-discontinue-'em Adobe.) And somewhere around that time, Adobe also flipped the Y axis in Illustrator to assuage uninformed demand from users who don't know Descartes from Adam, and it and everything that imitates it drives me freakin' nuts.
Related: Even before inverting Y, Illustrator's single Artboard was always inexplicably created at the center of the program's limited pasteboard. And it still is, and that's one reason why its page handling was (and still is) far more cumbersome than it should be. FreeHand's initial default page was properly created at the lower left;  in other words, at the origin of its proper Cartesian coordinate system. So added pages proceeded sensibly without, in effect, wanting to waste half or three-quarters of its limited pasteboard.
A vector based drawing program (or CAD program) should, by default, have its X ruler at the bottom of the screen, not at the top, and positive Y values should increase upward. But if Serif had done that, there would be a firestorm from users who now think Y values increase downward, just because they do in a web page—and Adobe Illustrator.
It's too late for this issue. But please, for everything else going forward, let's just forget Adobe Illustrator so that vector-based drawing can actually move forward.
For example: If vector-based drawing ever does get out of its Adobe-esque doily drawing doldrums, one thing we might find of interest is the feature that has long existed in Canvas for directly plotting curves by formulae and function. Guess what kind of coordinate system that feature uses.
JET

And it does in SVG, and therefore in Inkscape. But I'm not saying it should in Affinity Designer. Because unfortunately, Descartes's grave was desecrated by the graphics industry long ago. So everything's just a scattered mess anyway.
Go try and tell your trig or calc professor (or your HP graphing calculator) that the Y axis origin should be at the top of something called a "page," and therefore vertical values should increase downward. But that's what has happened to vector-based graphics programs; something that is by definition math-coordinate driven.
The root problem is, Affinity Designer should be an illustration program first and foremost, and a proper Cartesian coordinate system is what should be used in all such programs. But that's not Serif's fault. That ship sailed with FreeHand. (It was actually merely run aground by if-you-can't-beat-'em-just-buy-and-discontinue-'em Adobe.) And somewhere around that time, Adobe also flipped the Y axis in Illustrator to assuage uninformed demand from users who don't know Descartes from Adam, and it and everything that imitates it drives me freakin' nuts.
Related: Even before inverting Y, Illustrator's single Artboard was always inexplicably created at the center of the program's limited pasteboard. And it still is, and that's one reason why its page handling was (and still is) far more cumbersome than it should be. FreeHand's initial default page was properly created at the lower left;  in other words, at the origin of its proper Cartesian coordinate system. So added pages proceeded sensibly without, in effect, wanting to waste half or three-quarters of its limited pasteboard.
A vector based drawing program (or CAD program) should, by default, have its X ruler at the bottom of the screen, not at the top, and positive Y values should increase upward. But if Serif had done that, there would be a firestorm from users who now think Y values increase downward, just because they do in a web page—and Adobe Illustrator.
It's too late for this issue. But please, for everything else going forward, let's just forget Adobe Illustrator so that vector-based drawing can actually move forward.
For example: If vector-based drawing ever does get out of its Adobe-esque doily drawing doldrums, one thing we might find of interest is the feature that has long existed in Canvas for directly plotting curves by formulae and function. Guess what kind of coordinate system that feature uses.
JET

Looking back at this request. I really feel I was aggressive, and I wasn't looking at the bright side that we have this great app for 50$ (and most of the time it's on a discount). and serif really deserves an apology from me.

There you go.
Sorry, maybe it's just me but I don't get all the people "demanding" tools in a first edition that other developers took years to implement.
Yes, it's nice to have but understand that implementing tools well costs a lot time and effort.
You get a lot for the price the software costs and a lot of features are added for free. Some other developers will only "fix" things in a payed update/upgrade.
 
There's so many people "demanding" new features that the problem is what to implement first. Everybody thinks their requested tool has priority...
 
Just be reasonable...
 

This is wrong.
This functionality was only added to Illustrator in version 10, released nearly 14 years after version 1.0.
CorelDRAW added its "envelope tool" in version 2, released about 2 years after version 1, but that isn't quite a mesh distortion in the same sense...
Inkscape's first release was version 0.35, and their "live path effects" were not added until 0.46, released over 4 years later.  (Illustrator only had their envelope distortion about 2 years before Inkscape's initial release.)
etc...

This is one of the real problems around here! All a lot of people want is a cheap clone of the various Adobe products.
Affinity software, as Serif have said, is being build from the ground up, as an alternative to existing products not just a copy.
Personally I think they are doing a damn good job and I'm getting fed up with people who insist that they are no good because they are not Adobe!

Here is the test curve svg - the first curve I created. Try for yourself, there is no lying (obviously - why on Earth would there be?) and the results are the results I showed.
testcurve.svg
And what exactly is the point of you trying Affinity Designer 1.7 when we've acknowledged the problem and I clearly labelled the results I showed as being from Affinity Designer 1.8 Beta.
Many thanks for your input,
Matt

I understand that. I am providing an alternative viewpoint that not all designers are in love with Illustrator's isolation mode. I am not the only one - visit Adobe forums, and a quick search will result in questions from users how they can turn off isolation mode.
 
And I am not inherently opposed to an isolation mode - merely the way it is implemented in Illustrator. I do like opening a symbol or smart object in its own window when working on complex art and layouts. Having the rest of your design faded out - no, thank you.
 
 
Various reasons. Under pressure from a deadline, and complex artwork tends to become laggy to work with. A secondary click may be interpreted as a double-click under circumstances. Besides, double-clicking is 1) frustrating when the user works with a Wacom, and 2) to be avoided in relation to repetitive strain injury. Third, if alternative methods exist, we ought to explore those as well, and see if we may improve on the Illustrator working methods.
 
 
Ah, my mistake. It was late when I wrote that line. I meant that in that other application I can either hold down a modifier key or switch selection mode, and a single-click selects any object in a group or sub-group. No need for double-clicking at all to work with groups and sub-groups.
 
Also, in that other application I can easily select objects 10 levels deep with one click. Then select another object in another group anywhere in the canvas with one click. Selecting is dependent on a mode switch - which means I can drag a selection marquee around objects within the active group that I am working in without accidentally selecting other objects or groups.
 
...
The reason for my counter posting is really only to start up a discussion to explore alternative workflows to solve these workflow issues in Affinity Designer. I and others do NOT like the isolation mode as it is currently implemented in Illustrator. Double-clicking as a common GUI action has its drawbacks as well.
 
So, let's explore various options, I say. Let's not be bound by what is standard in Illustrator, and perhaps we can discover a method of selecting, and working with, objects in groups that is an improvement over what Illustrator offers - because I feel Illustrator's workflow is a pain in the neck.

The issue that a long time ago I railed about is that there is even a document dpi. If there wasn't a document dpi as implemented, there wouldn't be this particular issue at all. If there is even a vector application with such a thing, I haven't used it. 
This applies to both AD & APub. Just damn silly.

Correct. Proper logo designs of all things should be created with the most painstakingly efficient and elegant paths. The more vector-appropriate the artwork, the less excuse for auto-tracing. Else, you lose the resolution independence advantage that vector-based graphics exist for in the first place.
Certainly anyone claiming to do commercial quality vector illustration (i.e., charging money for it) should be proficient in drawing optimal paths with the appropriate tools. And that's where anyone learning to create commercial-quality work should expend energy; not in tweaking a bunch of tolerance settings in an auto-trace feature. The more vector-appropriate the artwork, the fewer and cleaner the paths should be, so the less "time consuming" it is anyway, for someone who knows how to do it right.
So when it comes down to it, the only few-and-far-between excuse for resorting to auto-tracing is for things that are just too complex for drawing with deliberate and intelligent discernment. And even in those cases, one should always ask oneself if auto-tracing is going to yield any technical advantage anyway. See the self-cancelling cycle?
It's not the beginning users' fault. The software vendors grossly over-glorify the "automagic" of auto-tracing features with claims like "Instantly convert raster images into resolution independent vector graphics!"
That's the myth perpetrated among hobbyists. There is no "conversion" to it. Raster-to-vector is not some kind of unambiguous code translation, like converting a TIFF file to a PNG file. The only lossless 1:1 "conversion" from a raster image to a vector graphic would be literally tracing a square path around each and every pixel. And that would have absolutely zero resolution-independence advantage over simply using the original raster image. That technically "perfect" auto-trace would also be perfectly useless.
No, there's just re-drawing the subject. And auto-tracing doesn't even make any attempt to re-draw the subject, because it has no idea what the subject or its purpose is. It merely tries to draw paths around contiguous clusters of similarly-colored pixels, utterly regardless of shape or meaning. So you either re-draw the subject with meaningful (and hopefully aesthetic) human discernment, or you entrust it to a completely dumb algorithm that has (as of current standards) absolutely none.
JET

Most professionals will do a manual trace for logo's as it yields best results. I can image It might save time but with relatively complex logo's doing it yourself is always better then any trace program.

I don't know what that has to do with this thread (which is just a repeat of existing auto-trace threads). But if you want to see, say, a thoroughly well-done Javascript implementation in Affinity, I'd be right there with you. I've said as much in existing feature wish threads. (I'm not really interested in coding—or buying—plug-ins.)
But now may not be the time since the feature set (and therefore, I assume, the object model) of Affinity Designer is still very much under development.
JET

No. Just slightly more convenient.
For other examples in addition to the scanning utility already mentioned: I use the Windows Calculator utility quite often, every day, while working in most every program I use. Same thing goes for the screen capture utility, TechSmith SnagIt, and the standalone Bitstream Font Manager that comes bundled with CorelDraw.
Launching any of them is, at worst, a single click on the TaskBar. (SnagIt is invoked by a keyboard shortcut.) I find that no more arduous than clicking a tool button or making a menu selection in order to invoke yet another auto-trace feature to twiddle with yet another UI, just to get pretty much the same result.
I use multiple programs all day. I also use multiple vector drawing programs. I don't need a differently-branded UI corresponding to each different drawing program for every calculation, screenshot, scan, or auto-trace. I actually prefer using the same familiar interface for scans and screenshots and font management, regardless of what graphics program I'm using. It's actually more efficient that way.
Auto-tracing is just as appropriate for that kind of "standalone" use. It doesn't need to be re-invented in every drawing program. There are decent auto-trace solutions (at least as defined by the current state of it) available to everyone for free, even. Unless and until Serif (or anyone else) has some kind of game-changing functionality to make it more than what it currently is (generally bad practice anyway), it's not even on my "missing features" wish list.
For example: I have yet to see any auto-trace program (targeted to mainstream general graphics users) that knows what a child knows: that when it's scanning the pupil of my puppy's eye, the resulting path should be an ellipse. So yeah, if and when the Affinity team happens to have in its secret closet an auto-trace feature with sufficient artificial intelligence for at least basic shape recognition, that might be something worth introducing.
JET
 

Yes, Illustrator has an auto-trace feature, as do most similar programs.
Not that it matters. What many don't know is that Illustrator was very late to the whole auto-tracing thing, as it was in many other features. All three of its main competitors (FreeHand, Draw, Canvas) had full auto-trace features, while Illustrator (up 'till around version 9, as I recall) had only a crude trace command that only traced one color at a time.
Nowadays, auto-trace features are very common both as built in features and as online services, and there are even free implementations of both. Tourmaline mentioned Inkscape and you yourself mentioned Vector Magic. And although their user interfaces differ in terms of eye candy, they all do pretty much the same thing, and results are all pretty much alike: "Garbage in, garbage out" very much applies.
So as for "why," consider that in context of Tourmaline's first reply in this thread, in which he paraphrased Serif's replies (which you can read if you do a quick search for the already-existing threads on this commonly-requested feature). Unless and until Serif has something game-changing to bring to the auto-trace table, there are more valuable things for its dev team to focus on which constitute real opportunity for long overdue innovation in the vector-based drawing arena.
I am among those who see no need for yet another "me, too" auto-tracing feature in Affinity. It's no more onerous to switch to another program for this very single-purpose function than it is to, for example, launch the scanning utility of my scanner. Even Corel long delivered its auto-trace solution as a separate standalone utility that was simply bundled with Draw.
Moreover, when it comes down to it, auto-tracing is a bad practice that usually just swaps one kind of resolution-dependent ugliness (bitmap pixelation) for another (poorly-drawn vector paths).
JET

On the other hand, it doesn't require a well-drilling rig to simply put a screw in that piece of wood.
All that's required to provide versatile flow-, org-chart functionality is a basic connector line object and an appropriate symbols library, both of which are common in vector drawing programs, and both of which can also be used for other creative purposes. (Affinity already has a suitable Symbols feature in which one can store and organize their subject-specific box shapes.)
As far as "polluting" the program goes, this is not a narrowly "vertical" need. I dare say the majority of vector illustrators encounters at least the occasional need to create such diagrams for everything from org charts for the VP to decision trees in the troubleshooting manual. (Ever had to hack such a simple thing out in Illustrator, which provides no connector lines, even though all three of its historic competitors do? I have, many times.) When a connector lines feature is present, it can also facilitate wiring diagrams. And maps. And assembly diagrams. And extrusions.
The key to maintaining powerful elegance is careful and innovative integration of features. Just off the top, why can't a "connector" just be a path end attribute? Or why can't a Connector Line be one of the Smart Shapes with adjustable parameters? Functionality doesn't always have to be implemented in the same way as conventional wisdom assumes. Every little added function doesn't have to be presented as an Adobe-esque overblown standalone in the grab-bag interface.
I'd favor some kind of connector line functionality. It's not unduly obtrusive in Canvas or Draw or Technical Designer. But the request would probably be better received if stated as that—connector paths—instead of as something specifically for network diagrams. The basic functionality can be useful for all kinds of things.
JET

There are plenty of programs I have no use for. So I don't use them. And I don't waste my own time repeatedly asking their makers "WHEN is such-and-such going to occur?!"
JET

You obviously have no idea how long it took Illustrator to acquire its meager Select Same... commands—and many other things people here call "must have deal breakers."
JET

Hear hear! It's been demonstrated that a lot of nice things can be done with the brushes in Designer, but calling them "vector" brushes just because the raster images they contain follow a spline path, is entirely misleading.
Actual vector brushes (in which the brush's base artwork is vector paths) enable you to do an entire world of more powerful things:

 
For example, A single "Pattern Brush" in AI can be built to enable creation of a mechanically correct hex bolt of any length and diameter. As always, Illustrator's implementation could be easily exceeded in power and versatility, and that's what I want to see in Affinity Designer. Hopefully, that's what the eventual goal is (perhaps after sorting out the problems associated with the present sub-par expanded stroke results).
But it is disconcerting that the current brushes are called "vector" brushes. That doesn't suggest that what you (and I) would call "real" vector brushes are on the unpublished road map.
This is also why I am so very disappointed in the merely "me, too" treatment of arrowheads. I am convinced that a truly innovative implementation of what I call path stokes and path ends that could be combined into user-defined path styles could yield both a much more powerful "arrowheads" feature and a vector-brush feature more powerful, versatile, intuitive, and elegant than Adobe's treatment.
It would be a true game-changer even for long-time AI users who have never really discovered the kind of brush-based applications I'm talking about, just because Adobe's treatment is too "standalone" as opposed to being truly integrated with its own preexisting features of the program.
That is what I see as the core of potential advantages over Illustrator: The fact that it is a decades-old stack of newer features merely "bundled with" a bunch of outdated basic features. I see that opportunity diminish whenever I see a feature implemented in a mere "me, too" fashion, as is arrowheads.
JET
 

Hear hear! It's been demonstrated that a lot of nice things can be done with the brushes in Designer, but calling them "vector" brushes just because the raster images they contain follow a spline path, is entirely misleading.
Actual vector brushes (in which the brush's base artwork is vector paths) enable you to do an entire world of more powerful things:

 
For example, A single "Pattern Brush" in AI can be built to enable creation of a mechanically correct hex bolt of any length and diameter. As always, Illustrator's implementation could be easily exceeded in power and versatility, and that's what I want to see in Affinity Designer. Hopefully, that's what the eventual goal is (perhaps after sorting out the problems associated with the present sub-par expanded stroke results).
But it is disconcerting that the current brushes are called "vector" brushes. That doesn't suggest that what you (and I) would call "real" vector brushes are on the unpublished road map.
This is also why I am so very disappointed in the merely "me, too" treatment of arrowheads. I am convinced that a truly innovative implementation of what I call path stokes and path ends that could be combined into user-defined path styles could yield both a much more powerful "arrowheads" feature and a vector-brush feature more powerful, versatile, intuitive, and elegant than Adobe's treatment.
It would be a true game-changer even for long-time AI users who have never really discovered the kind of brush-based applications I'm talking about, just because Adobe's treatment is too "standalone" as opposed to being truly integrated with its own preexisting features of the program.
That is what I see as the core of potential advantages over Illustrator: The fact that it is a decades-old stack of newer features merely "bundled with" a bunch of outdated basic features. I see that opportunity diminish whenever I see a feature implemented in a mere "me, too" fashion, as is arrowheads.
JET