fde101

As @Bryan Rieger pointed out, there are a variety of options out there and a big piece of this answer will depend heavily on the style of animation you are trying to create, where you plan to deploy it (video, web, UI feature, etc.), and how you want to work with it. Other programs you might look at are Apple's Motion (video work) if you are on a Mac, or as a second option for hand-drawn cell-based animation on an iPad, there is also Callipeg, which has been around longer than Procreate Dreams. For more cartoon-like 2D rigged animations there is also the free open-source Synfig Studio which may be applicable in some cases (and that one is cross-platform). Note that this has been discussed before in many other threads, so searching the feature request forum for "animation" will net you many past discussions on this, and other recommendations were likely offered in those past threads as well.

The object styles in the Affinity products are unfortunately not "real" styles. When you apply one its properties are copied to the object, I don't believe any connection is made back to the style. If you modify the style the changes are not applied to the objects. They are more like presets than styles.

This has come up a few times before, and Serif has consistently indicated (when they responded at all) that they had no intention of introducing 3D or animation support of any kind into the Affinity suite any time soon. It wasn't quite so closed off that this opinion would never change, but it was close to that, and given how far behind they are on things that are much more applicable to what they had already said they wanted to do, I wouldn't advise holding your breath waiting for this.

No. Create the frame(s) on the master page(s) and link to each other if needed. Create one spread using that master and insert the text into the frame(s) that were created on the master. A red triangle appears on the right edge of the last frame where the text would overflow. Hold down the SHIFT key and click on that triangle. Publisher automatically creates enough additional pages to hold the overflowed content and links the frames together for you.

I think you misinterpreted. I meant to shift+click the overflow triangle when the frame overflows because of the content that was inserted into it. I gave paste as an example of one way the text might have gotten into the frame. And no, you wouldn't need to do that for each page if the frame is on the master - just take care of it on the master.

While I agree that linking frames across pages from the master would be useful, it would mostly be so when there are multiple text streams to be linked. If you only have one text frame, instead of adding the pages then linking them, try shift-clicking on the triangle after pasting in or otherwise inserting the content that overflows.

The same is true of Windows. Internally Windows performs most security checks as the level of a process owner, not at the level of a process. This violates the principle of least privilege at a low level in the system. A true capabilities architecture solves this by granting specific privileges to individual objects (memory pages, devices, files, etc.) to individual processes, effectively working at a much lower level than is feasible to accomplish with such an arrangement. Practically all modern operating systems are fundamentally insecure at a low level. There may be a few specific privileges (they are generally broad in scope and not tied to individual objects) which are handled at the process level in modern systems, but until that is applied pervasively against each object for each process, the security is incomplete. The so-called "application sandbox" approach is in a sense a recognition for this: it is a high-cost mechanism to try to "bolt on" extra security due to the insufficiency of the ACL model which is too difficult to "fix" in existing OS architectures. Until we are ready to hit the reset button and rethink the OS architecture from the ground up, our systems are fundamentally vulnerable. Look up KeyKos or EROS for past work that has been done in this area. They produced a lot of documentation explaining the fundamental vulnerabilities in contemporary security architectures and ways to solve them using a capabilities approach.

Not everyone is designing for print. When working on elements targeting video, cinema, user interfaces, etc., it is more essential to work with a calibrated display and make judgements against that. For typical video color grading work the "most correct" setup is a separate display showing only the content, without any user interface at all, and to manipulate controls on the user interface and make judgements on the separate display, but it is still necessary even when working that way to sometimes view things on the user interface display, meaning it must also be calibrated as much as possible, and anything that might throw off perception of color within the image minimized. When using applications like the Affinity apps, that method of working is less of an option, as you directly manipulate the image within the user interface itself, so color judgements on the user interface display become even more critical. You spend a lot of time looking at the design on that display, and if you spend enough time looking at something while working with it, you lose the ability to make accurate judgements about what you are seeing, as your eyes adjust to it and it "looks" right even when it is not. Keeping the "first impression" as accurate as possible is very important.

Correct, and for good reason. When judging color you are influenced by what surrounds that color. A neutral gray appearance is optimal for a user interface because it minimizes the influence it has on color judgements. Too high a contrast, or too much color in the user interface, and it becomes untrustworthy, making it hard to take seriously as a "professional" product in the design world. In short, I would have a harder time taking the Affinity products (or any other design-oriented products) seriously if the interface had too much color in it, or if the contrast of the user interface were too high. The default user interface has contrast which is just about right for the type of product that it is. However, I do recognize that there are those using these products who may be working in situations or handling projects where color judgement is less critical or is already impaired by eyesight issues or similar, and who struggle due to that contrast. Having a high contrast option to choose from in preferences would likely expand the software to more users who are in that situation and ease things for many who are in between. For some types of design software (ex. video color grading software) it would be the equivalent of braille buttons on cars - if someone is blind they shouldn't be driving - so I can understand why it might be much less of a consideration in such cases, but that certainly isn't the case across the board for these particular applications, and making provision for these users as an option in preferences would not be unwelcome, so long as it does not compromise the product for those who don't need it.

So is Windows and everything else which relies primarily on ACLs and user accounts for security purposes. If you want real security, either stay off the internet, or use something based on a pure capabilities architecture. Sadly, there are not too many of those to choose from today, as people tend to favor convenience, familiarity and tradition over security.

In addition to the questions @Alfred brought up, make sure you are looking in the list of applications you already purchased (check the "Not on this iPad" tab on the Apps page under your account), not trying to search the store. A search of the store won't find the version 1 apps because they were withdrawn when the version 2 apps were released.

I guess I come from the school where the development of a general-purpose operating system has at least two major milestones: first boot, and becoming self-hosting. First boot means you make it all the way through the boot process and are able to do something useful with the system. Self-hosting means that the operating system has all the tools and functionality required to build itself from its own source code, without needing to involve some outside system. To my mind, a general-purpose operating system is not complete until it has all of the required tools to continue developing it on that operating system itself. The fact that iPad OS and iOS have all of their development work done on macOS (or in some cases at least partially on other platforms) means they cannot be considered true general-purpose operating systems - they are embedded platforms which require outside support to maintain them. As long as that continues to be the case this will always cause them, in my mind, to be lesser platforms than macOS or other "real" operating systems that provide the tooling to maintain their own futures. ... and this also kind of makes my point. If the iPad were truly a "desktop replacement" then why would this still be true after it has been on the market for as long as it has? Sure, there will always be those who just need a web browser and a calculator or some such and who will do just fine with an iPad by itself... but for those who actually use technology to get real work done, an iPad isn't quite there yet.

That is for version 1.8, and if you limit the category to "graphics" software, there are two versions of Affinity Photo (1.8 and 1.9) and one version of Affinity Designer (also 1.x) in the list. Curious that none of the 2.x versions seem to be listed... only versions that are no longer for sale.

...wasting everyone's time and contributing to the frustration of the community when Serif completely ignores it, as they have essentially implied a few times would be their likely response to such a thing. Resolve has run on Linux for a long time, even prior to BMD's limited support for it, as the dedicated hardware consoles used to be part of a turnkey system that was the *only* way to obtain Resolve (at very high price points), with software-only download versions for computers coming much later than that. BMD has invested more heavily, from what I can tell, in providing macOS support than in providing Linux support, but they have made the previously turnkey-only Linux version of Resolve more widely available as a software-only download version, so they are keeping it up to some degree, though their distribution support is somewhat limited. How so? Adobe's software isn't available on Linux either. If someone prioritizes the choice of using Linux over the applications, then they aren't using Adobe, so this can't be considered an alternative to Adobe. If someone prioritizes the software over the operating system, and they are currently using Adobe software, then they aren't using Linux (at least not for that purpose), so they would not be in that "market". They have already done this and determined that it is not yet there. Even a beta version would require most of the development time that would go into a release version, so using one to "test the market" would be spending probably 90% of the effort that would be required to develop the final versions, meaning that they would already be committed to seeing it through, thus it would need to come after they would "test the market". Agreed, and I would suggest this one be closed, as Serif has already done with several others which have recently been created.

The iPad itself is quite crippled compared to a desktop/laptop: You can only install vendor-approved apps from the app store No alternative operating systems available No virtual machine hosting Limited options in terms of arranging multiple apps for simultaneous usage Limited options for on-device software development and automation Mostly locked-down filesystem complicates sharing of data between apps etc. The iPad is particularly nice when paired with the pencil to use it for drawing tasks and the like, and the portability is certainly a nice thing, but serious computers are still best to use when trying to do serious work. The iPad is more suitable as a companion to a real computer than as a replacement for one, and as long as it is as locked down as it is, I don't think that opinion will ever change for my part. The version 1 iPad apps actually were a better fit for the platform than the version 2 apps are: the "puck" for simulating modifier keys is particularly stupid in the context of a tablet interface, and most of the changes that were made simply don't work as well for a tablet as what they had in version 1. I suspect Serif was trying to move the interface in a direction that would make it easier for them to approach having greater parity between the iPad and Mac versions, but they did it rather poorly, and I think they need to reconsider how they handled this. In my opinion the current user interface of the iPad version is more important to fix than the lack of feature parity, but even better would be for them to fix both to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. Some of the features of the desktop version (such as linked external files and support for PhotoShop plugins in Photo) may be impractical due to the locked-down nature of the platform, and Apple might throw a fit if they try to add scripting support (ECMAScript that they are working on adding to the desktop versions) to the iPad versions of the apps (they have rejected apps from being in the App Store over trying to add support for things like that), but many other things that are currently missing should certainly be possible to add.