fde101

There is always CorelDraw if you are willing to pay for it...  not cheap, but they still offer a non-subscription version on their web site, including a Mac version now for the first time in a long time.
Inkscape is using a UI toolkit that is mostly UNIX/X-oriented, and no it does not have the native appearance of a Mac application - even in the "native" Quartz version (I downloaded the beta of 1.0 to check it out, but haven't had much time to play with it yet), but I haven't really taken the time to work out how functional the UI is yet.  At first glance I suspect it is probably better than most people here seem to give it discredit for, but not likely as well-designed as Affinity Designer is.

I've done a bit more research on the behaviour of Apple's own 'creative' apps. After all they're supposed to set the standard. This is what came out of it (Application/UI Style/Solution for 'dirty' file):
Keynote/Pages/Numbers (iWork) - Tabbed - Suffix TextEdit - Tabbed - Suffix Preview - Tabbed - Suffix Motion - Windowed - Dot iMovie - Single Document only - No indication Sample size may be a bit small but it looks like Apple is showing some consistency. When the UI style is Tabbed, they make use of a suffix, when it's Windowed, they use the dot (iMovie looks like a special case since the document is always saved, once a file name has been assigned).
So it looks like Serif has shown a solution for dirty files which is close to Apple's own solution. The UI style of Affinity apps is tabbed, and the indication for dirty files is suffix in the file name. If they follow Apple 100% it should read 'Edited', but, given the issues discussed above around available room in the toolbar, using the Star makes sense (to me at least).

Yes, this is something that has been commented on numerous times on the forum and it does need to be fixed.
In the meantime, make sure that Show Text Flow is enabled and zoom out so you can see entire pages.  Scroll through and you should be able to spot the red dots on the overflowing frames.

I'm remembering back to the days when software companies warned people not to submit feature requests and indicated that they never listen to them.  That was quite normal at one time.
Serif at least does listen, and many of the requests have made it into the software over time.
 
Where are you seeing this?  I see people downplaying the importance of the request, and for some users it may well be less important than for other users, but if anything all of the "+1" posts start sounding like so much noise after a while.  I don't think anyone is devaluing the original request, they are probably just tired of wasting time checking the thread every time it shows that it has been modified only to find a zillion more "+1" posts and no additional content.  I know I am getting to that point with some of these threads (this one is not as bad as some... yet...).
 
Consider: the more time Serif's developers need to spend reviewing these threads, not to mention posting to them as some seem to wish for, the less time they are spending on actually developing the requested features, and the slower the progress becomes.

I don’t know if this would be useful to anyone else so I’ll post it as a question first before putting in a request (if necessary).
I have often thought it would be useful, when manually trying to get nicely-justified text, if the first word on the next line could be shown at the end of the previous line in a sort of ‘ghost’ form (see attached image where the word at the end of the line – in light orange – actually comes from the next line).
This would make it a lot easier to see how much of the text was missing from the line so I could make a better judgement on what tracking/kerning/scale options I can use to get the text to fit nicely.
For instance, in my example on line 3, a little bit of a tracking change could easily bring “male” back from the next line and remove the gap to the right.
The user can then go down the text line by line getting rid of the space as necessary before justifying the text.
Obviously this feature shouldn’t be on all of the time; maybe it could be a View option, or part of a Typography Persona with other such tools.
Does anyone else think this is something that’s worth requesting, or is it just me?
P.S. I don’t know what the proper term for this is, if there is one, so I called it “Ghosted Text Overshoot”. Googling for it won’t get you much of an answer.

A Wiki might be another option to consider, with limits on who can edit it.  There could be links back and forth between the Wiki and the forum.
A public ticketing system for feature requests and bug reports might be another option to consider.  That might make it easier to keep organized.
Just some food for thought.

Actually, they are layers in the Affinity products.

I think that has been reported elsewhere, and occurs for images pinned in text where the Text Frame came from a Master Page (as in your case). The workaround, I think, is to use Edit Detached before trying to move the pin.

I think they should change the function of the Apple Defaults button, not its name. That button should change only a well documented & limited set of text entry related shortcuts to those most commonly used in Mac desktop apps (for example in Finder, which is an app).
That would give users an option to keep any custom shortcuts they have created for anything not in that limited set, or by clicking that button after clicking the other Defaults button (which I think should be named Affinity Defaults) to do what the Apple Defaults button does now.

These are both logged with us, but as Walt says if something isn't in the changelist it likely hasn't been fixed - I've updated these reports though

How are the longer extensions impacting you?
I actually kind of like them that way.  They are descriptive and less likely to conflict with other software.

We believe the issue "Adding Auto Correct option for double space to singular space crashes app" has been fixed in 1.8.0 [Publisher beta is currently available if you care to check]. 

You can actually move it around in the title/toolbar the same way you do the other toolbar items.
 
Yes, both are still there.

Same thing with an asset would be nice...  and if replacing something with an asset that has an unpopulated text or picture frame, if the thing being replaced has one that is populated, the content should be retained in the replacement object.

Hi @carniphage, welcome to the forums!
This issue has been brought up on a few other threads and I certainly agree this option should be available.

Hi, 
I am using Affinity Photo to replace Photoshop for game development work. 
One common workflow, when authoring textures for games, is to use the alpha channel to define some material property (rather than transparency). In the Unity game engine, alpha is used for the "smoothness" channel.
In Affinity Photo, it is actually quite easy to use the channel panel to paste a smoothness image, put in into a spare channel, then move it into the alpha. So far, so good. 
HOWEVER... When the file is exported, the R,G and B pixel values appear to be multiplied by the corresponding alpha value.  This makes the export unusable, because while the alpha is correct, the R,G and B are suddenly not the values which were authored.
I tried to see if all exports formats did the same thing.  This issue happens whether the document has a transparent or solid background, or whether the exporter is PNG, TGA or TIFF. 
I can understand why this behaviour might be the default,  but it means that this very commonplace channel-packing workflow is not possible using Affinity Photo. 
I would very much like to request a feature where export "premultiply" behaviour could be turned-off. Perhaps with an export checkbox. Or perhaps off by default on transparent background documents.
 
 

It looks the same to me also - here is release and beta right up against each other (beta in front):

 
There does appear to be a redraw issue - i had another window in front of the toolbar just now and when I moved it away I got a line through the icons:

Requested screen shot of the unified toolbar. Retail in back, Beta in front. Pen tool selected in both.
 

The main toolbar and title bar are integrated. The general appearance is quite different. There is no fundamental change in functionality, however.

How are the longer extensions impacting you?
I actually kind of like them that way.  They are descriptive and less likely to conflict with other software.

On the Mac you can already get very close to this using the Stationery Pad feature of the OS as described here:
 
One current limitation (as @Old Bruce pointed out in that thread) is that it currently works by duplicating the document and keeping the copy in the same place as the template.  With many current MacOS apps you can then easily rename and move the document to a more appropriate location by using options that appear when clicking on its title in the title bar, but the Affinity apps are currently a bit behind the curve in supporting this now-common user interface feature on the Mac...
 
To my knowledge there is no Windoze equivalent to this feature.

Data Merge doesn't necessarily have to be for creating multi-page documents.
Photoshop and Illustrator have data merge and it's used to output multiple JPEG files that have the same core design but use the data for variations in names etc. 
 

What about losing a week's hard work?
 
This should make no difference.

What about losing a week's hard work?
 
This should make no difference.

Way back at the dawn of computers there were big expensive monolithic systems that people had to schedule time to use because they were so expensive to buy and maintain that there was no way for everyone to have one at their desk.  Later terminals would allow multiple users to access the computer seemingly at the same time, but sharing the processing resources of one big computer.   Centralized computing.
Then came micro-computers and suddenly users might have their own computer sitting at their desk.  Distributed computing.
Then came the whole client-server thing where major processing was pushed to a server but each user accessed it through a personal computer much like they would have used terminals to access a mainframe in the past.  Centralized computing.
Then came peer-to-peer solutions which shared data among separate computers without the need for a centralized server.  Distributed computing.
Now we have the whole "cloud" thing going on where big companies are farming out major computing resources and users access them remotely from their various "devices".  Centralized computing.
 
The computing industry in general seems to go through cycles where what was unpopular in one generation becomes the "in" thing in the next.  As people start to realize the limitations of what is currently "popular" they try something else and with the effect of the latest buzzword things swing so far in that direction that it needs to correct itself and things get carried back in the other direction.
 
There is nothing wrong with floating windows, and things that were designed in the 1980s are not inherently bad in the 2010s.  Don't let yourself get suckered into the buzzwords that happen to be popular at the moment without understanding first that there are tradeoffs to all of it and what is popular at the moment might not be the best thing for your particular problem or situation.
 
 
Most things do.  I kind of like what the Haiku OS project is doing with their "Stack & Tile" functionality, for example...  a definite step in the right direction as it provides the flexibility of a multi-window interface while still allowing for windows to be stuck together, even including windows from different applications if that helps with organizing how you are working...