retrograde

@transitdiagrams No one here is speaking on behalf of VectorStyler (VS) in any official capacity. As Walt mentioned, we’re simply enthusiastic users sharing our experience because VS fills in many gaps that still exist in Affinity Designer.
I’m not a VS purist; I’ve supported Affinity for over a decade and still want it to grow. I genuinely like the software and believe artists should have more viable options beyond Adobe. For years, I invested time learning Affinity Designer and trying to make it work for my daily needs. But progress on essential features was slow, developer feedback was rare, and promised updates were repeatedly delayed or dropped altogether. Some core features are still missing even after all this time.
It was actually someone on the Affinity forum who suggested trying VS, and I’m grateful they did. It delivered nearly everything I was missing and allowed me to avoid returning to Adobe. I now try to do the same for others who feel stuck; offering VS as a potential solution, not as a replacement or competitor, but as a complement to Affinity. For example, I still regularly use Affinity Photo in place of Photoshop.
There's no reason we shouldn't discuss alternative tools on this forum, as long as it’s done respectfully. Most creative forums welcome such conversations. Affinity users are often looking for workarounds or tools that address their current limitations, and it's fair to mention options like VS when they genuinely help. I've never told anyone to abandon Affinity; only to consider what else might help them work better.
 

 

I don’t think it’s a generational thing, but rather an overall change in consumer expectations. In the 90s and early 00s all updates, fixes, new features, etc were generally saved for the next big release (every 18-24 months typically) so that they could be burned to CD-ROM (remember ‘gold masters’), packaged in a shiny new box and sold to consumers. Sure there might be minor updates along the way for critical bug fixes and minor updates, but these were often inconvenient for customers due to limited internet connectivity and bandwidth concerns. 
Over the last 20 years with the web and app stores customers have come to expect a constant stream of incremental updates. While this is great when you have a mature, stable product and are able to continually drip out minor bug fixes and small improvements every couple of weeks, it does pose a significant problem for less mature or less stable products when they need to implement significant changes in their product. These types of foundational changes can take months or even years (ahem, especially with mounting technical debt) to complete, and in the current culture of constant updates these products can often feel stalled or abandoned by their customer community.
Serif isn’t the only company with these issues today, Procreate has also faced similar criticism from their community for a lack of meaningful updates. Recently however the company changed from their default mode of radio silence (it’ll be released when it’s released) to a more open dialogue with their customers, providing them with an indication of what they’re generally working on, what issues they face, and rough estimates of when users might begin to see that work released. This strategy appears to have been a very smart move as it has greatly reduced customer frustration along with rumours and speculation about the death of Procreate, or whether or not the company is still actively engaged in its development.
Anyway, I’m sure the staff at Serif are still actively working on the Affinity suite, and no doubt both they and Canva have big plans for the software in the future. One thing they really need to develop however is a clear communication strategy as the ongoing total radio silence and the popular “it’ll be ready when it’s ready” narrative look jarringly out of place in today’s consumer market, and continues to erode consumer confidence.

The limited amount of bug fixes in these last 2 builds is because they are RC builds. I will not disagree that more of the newer bugs should be fixed, but I don't think that affinity is dying. I do wish that there is better communication from serif though.

Just a simple 'paste on all artboards' from the edit menu would be welcome. That way single or multiple objects could be pasted at anytime to existing artboards unlike the artboard as a symbol method.

I've bumped it again and logged it against 2.6.1. Thanks for reporting again.

Hmm... I feel the pain of bugs like anyone else, yet I always keep in mind the ratio of Serif's employees to the giant amount of effort to put into three very complex apps for three platforms. Then there's the ballance of fixing bugs, improving existing freatures and developing new features.
Adobe has about 30k employees, while you could squeeze all of Serif's into two busses. These around 90 employees surely aren't lazy nor incapable, it's just the ratio of work to man power. So, while I'm also every now and then frustrated with bugs or non existing features, I still love Affinity, the idea of it, the smooth workflow, the performance, here and there better ideas than big Adobe's (think of Studiolink... still mindblowing!) and the simple fact, that if nobody supports any kind of competition, then there will never be competition. Having some dev-involvement into IT-projects myself, I'm still in awe of how far they've come with their still relative brand new software in that short time. And when you consider the price and non subscription model, so far, even with all the countless bugs, I personally think it's always worth it to support that little gang of Nottinghams Robin Hoods. I'm sure, as soon as some sweet Canva money flows into Affinity, there will be faster bug fixing, new toys, finally AI and more time for support.

Might sound corny, but I'm greatful for software like this. I made my final assignment projects in media design in many sleepless nights with Publisher, Designer and Photo and happily graduated with it. That would have never worked with Adobe stuff on my then very ancient computer. So... many may complain, me too every now and then, but I love Affinity and I hope nothing but the best for the Nottingham Serifs, their products and I can actually see a very bright future.
Love & cheers from Krautland 🤘

Thanks! Yes I was an early adopter of Designer back in 2014 and was included in their Designer workbook when it was being planned. I did the tutorial chapter on the Escher-esque multi perspective wine cellar. I also wrote a book for Packt Publishing on Designer version 1 during the pandemic. You can find that on Amazon. It's called Up and Running with Affinity Designer.
Thanks for your comments on my post, as I said I don't really have anything against gradient meshes I just think nowadays with all of the tools in Designer there really isn't as much of a need for them. You can certainly get the same (or I would argue) much better results, faster. As ThatMikeGuy earlier in the thread commented, the "vector-ness" of the mesh workflow eventually gets rasterized when output or exported out. I wouldn't argue against having the feature if it gets added as I'm sure some people would prefer that workflow, I just don't think I would ever go that route again unless Serif's implementation of it adds something new to it. 🙂

I've experimented some more with the technique of using shapes with scalable Gaussian blur FX within a bounding background color shape combined with the Warp Group tool to see how similar it might be to using a Gradient Mesh from Illustrator. I think it has a lot of promise. It's a bit different, but I can see some advantages. Here is a comparison of first an Illustrator Gradient Mesh and then an Affinity Designer Warp Group with Gaussian Blurred shapes (along with a little bit of raster splatter brushes for texture)
Illustrator:

Affinity Designer:
 

Thanks! Yes I was an early adopter of Designer back in 2014 and was included in their Designer workbook when it was being planned. I did the tutorial chapter on the Escher-esque multi perspective wine cellar. I also wrote a book for Packt Publishing on Designer version 1 during the pandemic. You can find that on Amazon. It's called Up and Running with Affinity Designer.
Thanks for your comments on my post, as I said I don't really have anything against gradient meshes I just think nowadays with all of the tools in Designer there really isn't as much of a need for them. You can certainly get the same (or I would argue) much better results, faster. As ThatMikeGuy earlier in the thread commented, the "vector-ness" of the mesh workflow eventually gets rasterized when output or exported out. I wouldn't argue against having the feature if it gets added as I'm sure some people would prefer that workflow, I just don't think I would ever go that route again unless Serif's implementation of it adds something new to it. 🙂

Thanks! Yes I was an early adopter of Designer back in 2014 and was included in their Designer workbook when it was being planned. I did the tutorial chapter on the Escher-esque multi perspective wine cellar. I also wrote a book for Packt Publishing on Designer version 1 during the pandemic. You can find that on Amazon. It's called Up and Running with Affinity Designer.
Thanks for your comments on my post, as I said I don't really have anything against gradient meshes I just think nowadays with all of the tools in Designer there really isn't as much of a need for them. You can certainly get the same (or I would argue) much better results, faster. As ThatMikeGuy earlier in the thread commented, the "vector-ness" of the mesh workflow eventually gets rasterized when output or exported out. I wouldn't argue against having the feature if it gets added as I'm sure some people would prefer that workflow, I just don't think I would ever go that route again unless Serif's implementation of it adds something new to it. 🙂

Just found this thread.
I was a heavy gradient mesh user back in the day with illustrator but oh man there is no way I would want to work like that again. With Designer right now I can get faster, much better results without dealing with all of those unruly crisscrossing and parallel vector gradient paths.
Using shapes and paths with vector effects, blurs, inner/outer shadows and glows - basically using the Quick Effects panel with occasional but minimal use if at all of the pixel persona I can achieve whatever I need quicker and more efficiently allowing for better control to experiment with a much more spontaneous workflow.
With gradient meshes you really need to think ahead and nail down that path flow. Changing course far along in the process could be tricky and sometimes not even really possible without a ton of work.
I see the attraction gradient meshes can hold, I used them a lot and with great results, but these days with all of the tools already in Designer, I frankly don't see the need.  Some examples attached.
A full tutorial for the eye example can be found here if you're curious how it was done.
https://affinityspotlight.com/article/the-eyes-of-a-butterfly-with-kevin-house/

Kevin contributed extensively to the excellent Affinity Designer Workbook.
Edited to add: I’ve just discovered this forum post.

Wow. Incredible work. Your website is impressive. And you really do show what I've suspected and increasingly believed - that Affinity Designer has much more of what we want than we suspect. Your points about Gradient Mesh are spot on. You really have to plan well to use it at all. It can be powerful but what AD already has can get us there and beyond if we really push it. Your work proves that. Some of the examples show a book or something that looks like it covers using AD. Can you give us a link if that is the case?

This is the way! No need to build something from the ground up. The Warp group method that AD has is already superior in so many ways to Illustrators mish-mash of warping methods. Add a color swatch to each Warp node and even allow choice of blending mode and you have some very powerful tool on top of one that is already in place. And as @retrograde pointed out, you really have to plan well to even use Gradient Mesh in Illustrator or it is hopeless. I think harnessing what they have is the way to go.
Now, if they could allow warping of pixel layers and vectors with gradients within the Warp Mesh groups, you'd really have something special.  

I was one of the contributors to the Affinity Designer workbook. It's unfortunate that it's unavailable... but if you're interested, I wrote my own pretty comprehensive book (460 pages) on Affinity Designer for Packt Publishing. It covers up to Version 1.10 and it is still available on Amazon if that fits the bill for you. I cover all of the tools and interface in detail and there are 3 separate workshop chapters on creating 3 real world assignments, a logo and 2 types of illustration approaches.
Here is a link. https://www.amazon.com/Running-Affinity-Designer-easy-follow/dp/1801079064/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1631772053&sr=8-5

Just found this thread.
I was a heavy gradient mesh user back in the day with illustrator but oh man there is no way I would want to work like that again. With Designer right now I can get faster, much better results without dealing with all of those unruly crisscrossing and parallel vector gradient paths.
Using shapes and paths with vector effects, blurs, inner/outer shadows and glows - basically using the Quick Effects panel with occasional but minimal use if at all of the pixel persona I can achieve whatever I need quicker and more efficiently allowing for better control to experiment with a much more spontaneous workflow.
With gradient meshes you really need to think ahead and nail down that path flow. Changing course far along in the process could be tricky and sometimes not even really possible without a ton of work.
I see the attraction gradient meshes can hold, I used them a lot and with great results, but these days with all of the tools already in Designer, I frankly don't see the need.  Some examples attached.
A full tutorial for the eye example can be found here if you're curious how it was done.
https://affinityspotlight.com/article/the-eyes-of-a-butterfly-with-kevin-house/

Just found this thread.
I was a heavy gradient mesh user back in the day with illustrator but oh man there is no way I would want to work like that again. With Designer right now I can get faster, much better results without dealing with all of those unruly crisscrossing and parallel vector gradient paths.
Using shapes and paths with vector effects, blurs, inner/outer shadows and glows - basically using the Quick Effects panel with occasional but minimal use if at all of the pixel persona I can achieve whatever I need quicker and more efficiently allowing for better control to experiment with a much more spontaneous workflow.
With gradient meshes you really need to think ahead and nail down that path flow. Changing course far along in the process could be tricky and sometimes not even really possible without a ton of work.
I see the attraction gradient meshes can hold, I used them a lot and with great results, but these days with all of the tools already in Designer, I frankly don't see the need.  Some examples attached.
A full tutorial for the eye example can be found here if you're curious how it was done.
https://affinityspotlight.com/article/the-eyes-of-a-butterfly-with-kevin-house/

Just found this thread.
I was a heavy gradient mesh user back in the day with illustrator but oh man there is no way I would want to work like that again. With Designer right now I can get faster, much better results without dealing with all of those unruly crisscrossing and parallel vector gradient paths.
Using shapes and paths with vector effects, blurs, inner/outer shadows and glows - basically using the Quick Effects panel with occasional but minimal use if at all of the pixel persona I can achieve whatever I need quicker and more efficiently allowing for better control to experiment with a much more spontaneous workflow.
With gradient meshes you really need to think ahead and nail down that path flow. Changing course far along in the process could be tricky and sometimes not even really possible without a ton of work.
I see the attraction gradient meshes can hold, I used them a lot and with great results, but these days with all of the tools already in Designer, I frankly don't see the need.  Some examples attached.
A full tutorial for the eye example can be found here if you're curious how it was done.
https://affinityspotlight.com/article/the-eyes-of-a-butterfly-with-kevin-house/

Just found this thread.
I was a heavy gradient mesh user back in the day with illustrator but oh man there is no way I would want to work like that again. With Designer right now I can get faster, much better results without dealing with all of those unruly crisscrossing and parallel vector gradient paths.
Using shapes and paths with vector effects, blurs, inner/outer shadows and glows - basically using the Quick Effects panel with occasional but minimal use if at all of the pixel persona I can achieve whatever I need quicker and more efficiently allowing for better control to experiment with a much more spontaneous workflow.
With gradient meshes you really need to think ahead and nail down that path flow. Changing course far along in the process could be tricky and sometimes not even really possible without a ton of work.
I see the attraction gradient meshes can hold, I used them a lot and with great results, but these days with all of the tools already in Designer, I frankly don't see the need.  Some examples attached.
A full tutorial for the eye example can be found here if you're curious how it was done.
https://affinityspotlight.com/article/the-eyes-of-a-butterfly-with-kevin-house/

Just found this thread.
I was a heavy gradient mesh user back in the day with illustrator but oh man there is no way I would want to work like that again. With Designer right now I can get faster, much better results without dealing with all of those unruly crisscrossing and parallel vector gradient paths.
Using shapes and paths with vector effects, blurs, inner/outer shadows and glows - basically using the Quick Effects panel with occasional but minimal use if at all of the pixel persona I can achieve whatever I need quicker and more efficiently allowing for better control to experiment with a much more spontaneous workflow.
With gradient meshes you really need to think ahead and nail down that path flow. Changing course far along in the process could be tricky and sometimes not even really possible without a ton of work.
I see the attraction gradient meshes can hold, I used them a lot and with great results, but these days with all of the tools already in Designer, I frankly don't see the need.  Some examples attached.
A full tutorial for the eye example can be found here if you're curious how it was done.
https://affinityspotlight.com/article/the-eyes-of-a-butterfly-with-kevin-house/

For some perspective though, Illustrator's Gradient Mesh is only vector within Illustrator. If you make a PDF, or export to any other program, that thing gets rasterized. The technology for it is only within Illustrator and not Photoshop, After Effects, InDesign or anything else. 
That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have it, but I think it helps to keep in mind and it makes other non-vector solutions in AD a bit less distasteful. I'm intrigued by the solution that @loukash showed.
Edit: In addition. This fact can make the raster painting tools within AD more of an option for vector realism if viewed a certain way and handled well. Using brushes and layers within/above vector elements can be viewed as similar to accomplishing what Gradient Mesh accomplishes if you consider that most of the time it gets rasterized anyway upon export.  Still, it's not exactly the same thing and I do look forward to something like meshes included in AD.
 

Out of curiosity, I installed Vectorstyler, and gave it a whirl the past 2 hours. Some observations:
the mesh gradient tool is prone to corruption of the rendered result. Is that a bug?
In the first hour I experienced two crashes. One where I left the program for a while, and it spontaneously self-combusted. That doesn't happen very often in applications. That worries me.
Vectorstyler seems quite crash-prone. I was not doing anything complex, merely placing shapes and feeling my way around. Image effects like the curve corrupt the rendered result as well. Bug?
It has a good vector tool set. It feels somewhat sluggish to work with. I wonder how it will keep up with more complex artwork, since it did start to slow down with quite simple things. I also experienced lags and hiccups all the time during testing. Working with text felt slow as well. Even the GUI panels feel slow to respond. Overall, it feels clunky. Other design apps feel much snappier. There are a number of features that I really like: the Repeater (something I wanted in other design apps), and the Stroke Width tool which I use all the time in OpenToonz and ClipStudio. There are a lot of options to fine-tune things as well. The vector brushes remind me of Expression (remember that gem?), which set the bar quite high. I am not a particular fan of the way image effects are isolated from the layer stack. All in all, it has potential.
I have to add that Vectorstyler is one of the least stable and buggy design apps that I encountered in the past few years. The developers should focus on stabilizing their app and improve the overall performance. In its current version it is still too crash prone and buggy for my taste.
A standard test of mine is to load a certain AI file (artwork not by me, but by Von Glitschka).
Affinity Designer loads it perfectly:

The same AI file in Vectorstyler:

Oops! Not quite-so-compatible with AI files, it seems.
Editing this file is butter-smooth in Affinity Designer. In Vectorstyler it is a trial in patience. Even moving single objects updates the screen perhaps by 2 or 3 frames per second. Which confirms my initial doubts about Vectorstyler's performance with even medium complex art such as in this case.
Vectorstyler is not quite ready for prime time, in my opinion. An interesting newcomer on the market to be sure. But I'd rather have decent performance while editing than a missing mesh gradient tool. What use is a mesh gradient tool when editing slows down to a crawl with medium-complex vector art?
It is also quite expensive for what is on offer in my opinion.
I played around with the Windows version, btw.

I would probably use a stipple type of brush in pixel persona in Designer or in Photo and paint the gradients on a layer above so it's non-destructive. Make sure the colour you paint is the same as the background and you'll get a nice gradient fade into the background on those shapes.

Is there ever gonna be a quickshape like feature for Designer2 for iPad and Publisher2 for iPad? Not having a feature like that makes it harder to draw and make nice lines and nice circles. The stabilizer feature still isn't close enough to that. I know that there are features for picking a certain type of curve to use if you're drawing a curve or circle and we can fix each line and circle with dots in each line or circle in Designer. That just takes way more time to get the perfect line or circle by having to switch shapes, curve lines, and or edit the lines/curves. It would save everyone tons of time to just add auto line, curve, or circle maker option without having to change tools constantly. To be able to just draw a circle and hold the stylus down on the screen and make a circle and we can easily edit it after that. Same goes for curves and lines. So we don't have to edit a wonky line, curve, or circle. Which is i.m.o. more work than just editing a nice straight line, curve, or circle. I.m.o., that's why most people use Procreate instead of Affinity just for that reason. Affinity has tons of great features, but it's hard to use them or want to buy the program(s) for them if it means way more work to make nice lines, curves, and circles. Then a person is spending more time trying to get that correct. That's a big reason as to why a lot of people don't do digital art and why tons of people just get Procreate or Infinite Painter (can be used on iPad and Android tablets) just 'cause of the super ease of doing those things. If you guys can, please make a quickshape type version for Designer and Publisher. I have the version 2 lineup of iPad apps and I don't use them just 'cause I spend way too much time fixing the lines, curves, and circles. When I get that done much faster in Procreate. Procreate is lacking in a lot of features that Designer has, but quickshape feature in Procreate makes it worth skipping out on those features. A $70 one time fee for Designer isn't an expensive price. Though I feel like the price would be worth it compared to the $10 fee for Procreate if you guys have your own quickshape feature. Since your programs come with a lot of extra stuff that Procreate doesn't have.  

Serif you have my permission to add a quick 'flip selection' button to the Designers ipad pixel persona quick menu.