SrPx

Many of us in the other side are actual professionals earning money with Affinity. CURRENTLY and since long, and with the current, and past versions of AD and AP. I definitely am one. Is not like one of the sides in the debate is formed by professionals and the other isn't (that's even funny). I've recently been able to exchange work and samples with two persons (in a different community!) that had been years claiming to be super pros, and when I have been able to check stuff (and them mine), man has it been revealing. It is a very bad claim to make around here, specially as an argument in the fashion of: I am more professional than you, so I "know". Back it up with reasons , technical ones, as in any debate about tech stuff. And then we will argue with that, often the final truth staying in the middle. Workarounds ARE the everyday of so, so, sooo many professionals that it's not even funny. 10 companies and not only me, so many colleagues have always used workarounds, with the industry standard tools as I was even detailing in a recent post. Of course, minimizing the need of those is a must. I have never been against the implementation of these two features. Indeed, I'd say there are a few that are also pending, very important, in the Affinity apps (I'd love some added and other fixed in the Adobe and Autodesk ones too, BTW. Since many years). About the focus on digital painters... don't get me started. They have worked great there, but what they have addressed are some features and bugs in the very basic brush system in Photo, but photo retouch field does need to have a flawless brush for so many operations (ask any high end pro working editing magazine covers of studio photos of very high end level. And all use tablets). And the tablet precision issues was affecting even making a lasso for any operation (freaking dented contours!), so commonly used in image editing / photo retouch. Selections and masks are the soul of photo retouch, had to make a lot of that at many jobs. That's heavily more in the land of photography than in digital painting. Digital painters are also professionals, when they do it professionally, BTW. Designer now needs some love. YEP!!! Absolutely. In my hands at least, is proven to be EXTREMELY efficient. Maybe I am a more experience professional, then. Still, by no means this is to say that adding these features (and fixing some problems) is not of critical importance. Should surely be on the top of the list. So... we are agreeing in everything? NOPE. The harsh criticism without knowing what is happening there internally, neither considering the tools' price, the tone, is with what I can never agree. Also, as just mentioned, what is the point ? Generating animosity in a certain matter/feature is only going to make them have a less positive attitude in adding it. And they'll act as professionals, but we are all human, and motivation plays a big role. Another thing I don't get to understand is : If for many, the difference on behavior, quality, industry standards, logo, and whatever, is so much better with Adobe, what is their point in being YEARS waiting around here for a feature ? I mean, they clearly DO NOT love these apps, or adore Adobe's in comparison, why then don't just use Adobe suite? Isn't it then a huge waste of their professional time ? And time is money. To me it is. Is it because the company they work at pays the subscription but they are not willing to pay from own pockets one for home? If so, they should admit that honestly and how if being so, they depend on Serif. Or... just be fully coherent, and simply pay with your own money 60 bucks per month (and whatever it increases to be in the future) for the Adobe suite subscription. I would TOTALLY agree with criticism here, in that the features must be added. Heck, while doing projects, I've seen me wishing to have to make less "jumps", even if I do that at the speed of light. But the tone, borderline with insults at times, is IMO what removes relevance to the conversation. Because they haven't added this or that, then they ARE this or that (insert here whatever insult or disqualification), is the wrong point of the whole thing, even if the technical points were pretty valid and solid till that moment. Same with insulting users calling them unprofessional (while a real comparison of skills and experience might end up being super funny, with some...) I HOPE distort (even if perspective is added later, as you can deal with distort) and warp are implemented the earlier possible. But we don't want it done like a faulty outline stroke. They make the right call if don't add a feature in a poor way (seems the reason why they don't add a vectorizer), but only if they are sure they can implement something solid. I'm not in the other band in these, but absolutely against the tone, manners (of some, not all), and disqualifications/insults directed to the company.

IMO nobody said that, there are generally different distortion methods and functionalities available and used accross a bunch of different software. I would agree with that. I am using Affinity also in production since a while (even if for painting/drawing I use heavily Clip Studio), but Designer have been fully used for all my design related stuff (when using vector tools), lately (including logos, brochures, covers, etc). When needed a distort or warp, yup, is cumbersome to need to swap to Inkscape, and bring the nodes later, as needed, back to Designer. No biggie once I got used to it (at design/game/software companies used to swap a lot among tools, use VMs, all sort of context changes). Same with mesh gradient (different to Illustrator's, but I like it), and when urgently needed (speaking here about a very tight time sensitive deliver) to make a vector based illustration containing an spiral with distributed elements across it, going these with the orientation of the spiral (I believe I remember even with increasing spacing among them, progressively). All of it I got it done fast in Inskcape, the exact functionality was there (hadn't done that very specific thing before in Inkscape. Yet got it in minutes, and back to AD), export as basic nodes (as I don't need there the colors or complex printing stuff, is just the nodes of the function non doable in the other tool). I use other helper tools that are non complete or standalone by any means, but do ONE thing incredibly well, sometimes even better than illustrator. Is not only Inkscape. Even for inking with a vector brush, I kindda prefer the special Inkscape's inking tool for that (but I prefer painting/drawing with raster tools, so I rarely need that). While I would never do a full project in Inskcape, due to the UI and export/print/color management compliance. What I just told was among the many workflows and projects I made with Designer this year and the past one, all delivered to great satisfaction of the writers, game designers, and business owners who got that result and service. They typically care about the result, not the tool or whatever I have resorted to do with the quality as a key goal. When they care about the tool is as they will want to modify it (something scary for me, in most cases), more common in larger companies. Even in those cases, a clean file with raster laters (flattened FX and etc) layers, well organized and named is all they typically care about. And Photo, Krita, Clip Studio and Gimp can export at least a PSD like that. This is from someone who knows Adobe suite deeply (at many jobs), as well as the main Autodesk's tools. Not some Gimp fan who has not used anything else and does not even know what is missing. I kind of see a connection with the car mechanics anecdote and the wrenches. Maybe more than one would tell me "I'm not behaving professionally", or not using professional tools. IMO (and I agree with some post above: it can be a subjective matter) professional is everything you do to get a result. If plumber uses at my house some tape and rope to temporarily fix some pipe, so that I have water till next day when he can come with a piece and a better solution, and the result is a definitive repair, am all for that, it is professional. It is even more the case when I rarely have used, and watched using a workflow that was "pure" Adobe or pure Autodesk, when worked for decades at companies. Many extra tools constantly needed. There were always issues and things that would anyone with a brain scratch own head if at that critical moment when due to a major bug or lack, a whole project stage would get severely damaged for those problems. And some were huge. I remember resorting to CG Chat, Polycount and CG Talk for issues, crashes, and crazy problems in 3DS Max (an absolute standard, at the level of Maya, each one just getting more of a side of the business or some fields vs others. But dominating several industries, fully. And both since a while are Autodesk's property) that no doc, no oficial document would solve or address, but some other pro in some commercial studio had dealt with that, and had the nice and generous idea of posting their dirty and dark trick in some hard to find thread in those places (shall we all thank forum search systems). This happened WAY often. More with Autodesk than Adobe, but still. And those are THE standard! Is not like the "Professional" tools aren't plagued with bugs, issues, bad workflows and lacks of features for very common procedures. A lot of established opinions about those deserving such pedestal goes with perception, following the mass, and habits. Yep, we are lacking here features. Distort and warp, a mesh gradient, sound to me as essential, even basic. But is not impossible, not even difficult, to provide yourself with a fully functional workflow to get high quality results. With Illustrator (which I know well due to working at companies) any of those projects would have roughly take the same time (with a much higher co$t), as Designer allows to cut times in other areas. Photo is very efficient, too ...and there are even more raster mid cost and free tools to cover some lack, if there's any need in a particular workflow.

If you (I believe you are my age, or older, but I don't know why I suppose this... maybe as you have deep knowledge in many areas) remember how these apps were... the features were extremely poor comparing what is produced today. Those were bulky, inefficient, over simplistic compared to anything of today. So, till some degree, it balances with the poorer hardware, today's libraries and etc. A lot was super basic. Today's complexity (even counting on the tech advantages) is enormous in comparison. Many more cards in the cards castle (making the development proccess a tad more complex). For example, the field I know more, games... A game of the times could be built by three guys and enough pizza. I had a huge friend being one of those 3 in one those teams making internationally famous games. So, is apples to oranges, but in both directions. I ... have some problem in thinking of Adobe as a similar or smaller company in staff numbers. As money wise, it has been huge since quite early years. Sure, in the very first moments in the 70s, when John Warnock and Chuck Geschke somewhat initiated it, surely the funding and revenue was small (have no solid data about it), but we should realize that many of the features so much requested around here were implemented WAY after these initial years. Now, I don't know for certain what the Serif numbers are (and I hope I don't piss off anyone at the company or outside it, I never wish so for anyone in the planet), but with the bare raw data I can access... It seems to me here's were it's really apples (still nobody has made the joke) to oranges. I'm almost sure external sources are never accurate ... but looking at those... "MAYBE" Serif anual revenue is now around 13 million $. Which is EXTREMELY, CRAZILY low, while indeed competing (yep, it is, even if the staff says it isn't and the hardest critics come from the comparison... and not because part of the marketing implied so, but as people has placed Affinity as a competitor) with the giant. The staff, and this is obviously not just the developers, but also marketing people, logistic, accountants, maybe even legal department, etc, etc : 190 souls, only, according to one of the sources. Maybe it's 50 developers in there ?? I might be even being too optimistic. Adobe is not 190. Is well past 21.000. From other source, it says 101 -250. In comparison, really low numbers. In yet another source (sorry if not linking: pure lazyness after lunch, u can google and all that), the annual revenue is estimated a bit higher, yet only 17 million $. And 155 estimated employees. As you see, more or less the numbers stay in certain range. Which is pretty low for all what they have achieved. I very safely can confirm the mega epic paladin rank, here. Now, let's go to numbers about the giant. And not to diminish all what Adobe has achieved! . Again, am lazy/tired at the moment, not going into my more usual depths about both companies, so, only grabbed a few stats, but imo, are relevant enough for at least give a tiny chance to my main point (I'd be glad if only considered during one minute of impartial and honest thought) : When many of the features that are today claimed as done by Adobe with same or less staff, that is, from late 80s.... : - In 1989 the company counts with $121 million annual revenue. Yes, this is not per app, but the numbers above are also global. Also, please consider a KEY matter. Most of you have worked at IT, design, or similar companies. You know how revenue and funds can be focused in the area of most interest/need for the company. IE, if at some point, Photoshop was the one needing more attention, they could put most of the money there, or in the initial times, with postscript, and so on... So... already , and , very importantly, considering here inflation as a huge factor (more to my point, but don't quote me on that as am terrible at economy and numbers, in general) you get that really, we cannot compare the power of Goliath versus our epic David. 121 million is already quite different to 17 in the best estimation about Serif's annual revenue. Let alone that by that time, a lot of what is being requested, was not on the table, and the apps had terrible lacks in every possible sense. 1993 ... $313 million in revenue. 1997: $917 million in annual revenue. 1999 Acrobat 4.0 alone was making $129 million in annual revenue. 2009: Adobe acquires the analytics company, Omniture. This makes the company get into big data and open the company to marketers as customers, and... well consolidate the giant into a demigod. For the future, for income, for everything. 2017 Total revenue was $7.3 billion. Currently... it seems annual revenue is $11 billion, counting on 21.000 employees. In some occasion I have heard from some of the staff members around here, that the staff of actual developers is around 50 people. Of course, that was long ago, and Serif have made great progress, so, dunno the situation now, but in a total 150 -190 staff, I wouldn't be surprised if is 50 or a bit more. Yeah, it's apple to oranges. But IMO, in the other sense. I... don't pretend to generate any war here. Just stating things as I see them, sincerely. If u knew me, would know for certain that I prefer to agree than disagree in a debate, believe it or not. I just don't see the other take, here. I know the anxiety of desiring your critical feature developed or being improved and bug-free. But, every single time I get that frustration, I remember what are we dealing with here. Is David vs Goliath all the way. That despite this difference, there's still a large chunk of users purchasing permanent Affinity licenses versus staying (or going for a first time) to the CC cloud, and surely this tendency with an increasing growth (I sense more awareness about the tools in several media and colleagues of the job) is more than relevant to me. No doubt on that, they had poorer technology and less implementations to base on, at hand (also less high end standards to match)... but also to be considered they had quite some years to develop same features, the number of years for Affinity, much shorter. In a way, Affinity is not allowed (by public opinion, pros and the market) to not have those, today. I think this is an advantage for the pioneers. When there is nothing and you are generating the features a) You are not being compared to anything previous, you hit first and so hit twice, getting the narrative and prestige, and you neither have the shadow of competitors (they were pioneers in many things) b) you can afford to focus in what you believe is best, not so many industry standards you must fully match instead of driving the company to what is convenient or affordable. And also, is not like the API provided features make it that easy. Yes it is a huge advantage, but you still have a hell of work of building from there, besides they have chosen hard (but quite convenient for us) routes as making universal formats (not so much the case in Adobe), adopting technologies that are innovative but hinder performance a bit, like the graphic engine, as are thought for the future, and from start supporting iOS, Windows and Mac (ie, look at Photoshop for iOS now, despite being the giant it is!). Yes, today there's a ton of advantages, but doing that with a small team is no short of epic, even today. That's my 2c. Sorry to disagree.

Okay... I believe RAWs is mostly CPU. Only the devs here know for sure, but if they'd reply every hardware question, then no time to code, lol. I'd prioritize mostly on CPU. Yep, AMD all the way. Simply put, you can scale up cheaper, upgrade later on better than with intel, and quite more cores. Affinity uses well multiple cores, unlike some other competitors. And if is for fear of till what point could you upgrade, with a good B450 motherboard , you can even get (once those get cheaper) a 3950X. And the difference even with an already powerful 3700x is ...HUGE. Heck, slower clock, yet, for work, even better than an intel i9 9900K or KS (the heck of a machine, tho, but way fewer cores...this shows dramatically in render tests). So, me applauds the 3700X choice. It's 8 cores, 16 threads. And with all the improvements in generations since Ryzen made its estelar 1700 release. The only doubt is that AMD is now launching, pretty soon the 4000 series. I mean... if it'd be possible...I WOULD WAIT. Not necessarily to get a 4000 cpu, but as eveyrthing else can get cheaper. Some stuff not really significantly cheaper, but a lot will. In the opposite side, the super low end, a 1600 has got 100$, or 80$ in some places. While is a six cores, 12 threads machine that in my books is not a poor CPU. And the 2700x, an 8c/16 thread machine, I believe is 130$, which is crazy. Probably the best deal in years for a CPU. So, what deals would bring the 4000 series release..No idea. But this release is expected now, first moments of the 2020... It was scheduled for much later, but AMD seems to be "in the zone", lol. The GPU of choice, that 1650, is the one I typically am recommending for work in "affordable" budgets, as is definitely better than the 1050 ti 4GB, and I have a 1050 2GB version (there are more differences than the memory, in that one, happens often with nVidia) which is surprisingly fine for many GPU based apps. I would NOT go AMD for the graphic card. IMO, they offer better deals for the price almost across all the spectrum, but still the professional apps are much better prepared for CUDA, so you would end up getting quite less for your work; in some cases, even no compatibility at all (CUDA only apps). If was for gaming, I'd just get an AMD RX 570 (am cheap, I know...), or 590. Or some other more recent good cards. But I don't play anymore... So, the 1650 is fine. Beyond that, I'd go to a 1660 (similar in performance to an old 1070), it has 6GB, so, that's good for rendering, both 3D and video (depending on the app). Further considerations is if you do a lot of 3D rendering and with what. In general, for 3D you end up needing both, a good cpu and a good gpu. For video... Premiere is increasingly using more the GPU, but is mostly CPU. Although until 10 cores, beyond that, not much of a gain as the app still not capable of utilize effectively more (and how much time will be so is sth we never know with Adobe). In that scenario, the 3700x, a good fit, imo. Now, if using Davinci Resolve for video, then yes or yes is the card, it mostly uses that. But a poor CPU would be a bottle neck. If heavily using video and Davinci, the focus (as an ideal situation, as these cards are super expensive) would be a 1080 or even 2080, to get the most of it. Not that is needed for a lot of workflows. I know even dedicating a lot of time to video projects I wouldn't go past a 1660 or a RTX 2600. Blender benefits a lot from a good card in the viewport, now with EEVEE. Also for rendering in Cycles scenes that fit in your card VRAM. So, for Blender is quite important the card's memory. Unless they've already been able to use system memory for those cases, am not sure (am only illustrating and designing, late months). Neither in how it'd be an impact in rendering speed if that happens. All this considering Windows PCs, no Mac platform, as is not my cup of tea. For RAWs editing, well, is not my field (tho I handle often huge files), but I'd be to bet in CPU, RAM (you can even get 32 GB to play safe) and disk. I'm still wary on the limited writes of an SSD, no matter if the limit is around 2 petabytes, as people working with huge press files (my case) and video (often my case) do write tons of GBs to the disk per month. But, if happy to be ready to change the SSD from time to time (they've become a tad cheaper, so...and I believe they just brick before going out of duty...), IMO is a total must for tasks as heavy as RAW editing. I have no clue on how much can last an SSD used as cache and for storing the working file. Obviously with a good 4, 6 or 8 terabytes internal disk also in the machine to store the files you are not working with (and surely counting also on USB external disks for backup). Those, I'd prefer them to be Seagate Barracuda at 7200 rpm. Some people uses yet 5400 rpm (a lot of old laptops) disks, and I do notice them quite slower. I have never used a 10.000 rpm disk, so I dunno how good they are. Still, WAY slow compared to SSDs, that for sure. The SSD do heat up a lot, too. But yeah, CPU, RAM, Disk, GPU, that'd be my priority order for a situation like this. And unless there's solid data of Affinity working better on intel (frankly, no clue. They'll know...), is a total win for AMD Ryzen here. As... Well, for really serious stuff, I'd go with the incoming (some already released) Threadripper models, WAY more powerful. Even in mainstream, the (top in that range) beast that is a 3950X (the one I told you that could be the last upgrade of the AM4 platform you'd get. For example, in 1 or 2 years) is like the lil brother of those machines performance wise, all more powerful than this one (so, having carefully checked a lot of 3950X benchmarks... geez, can't even imagine...) . So I can easily imagine (judging on mentioned benchmarks' data) that a 3960x (so, threadripper) and above is the way to go if you need a lot of power for an amazing capability/cost ratio. Speaking of power, these 3960x and 3970x are said to be super power efficient, and that's no small deal in the pro ranges in both AMD and Intel, as at those levels the machines tend to have much higher electricity usage. And I don't mean TDP, but what they really pull out from the wall. So, great news there, too. Now, that's a different kind of money, yet extremely cheaper than going for a Mac Pro (globally 6k the most basic, but the CPU....) . But not the kind of budget we're handling here, as you already said the Dell's (my favorite brand in PC, I always get Dell for the family and friends, but I mount my machines by pieces, no Dell, no HP, nor anything) offers were already too expensive. Unless you have a strong need for a laptop, I'd skip that , and focus on getting a great desktop. But I'm known for hating anything other than a desktop for work... laptops offer way less cooling capability, smaller chips, and so, top speeds, capability and performance can't beat a desktop with same specs in any way. There's less room for everything. And quite pricey compared with a desktop solution of same specs. I'd save my bucks solely for one desktop and keep using whatever mainstream laptop or tablet you already have... Unless the mobile factor is really essential in your workflow, and not just a preference. And if one is handling RAWs and other large files and heavy tasks... It might be by far the best to do. Like using the most recent Threadripper. I believe the 3960x and 3970x can be already purchased, but it's 1400 and 2000 $ ONLY for the CPU. So, yeah, is another range of prices.But the rest of the machine is similar in cost to mainstream. Still, I'd opt for that instead of for a laptop and a desktop, if willing to do heavy work of the RAW editing level. You would get so a mother board (thge only really different component, and not crazily expensive) that could use in the future a 3990x. And rent it to the NASA later on, to recover from the investment. So, it depends. I don't know the requirements of your workflows. I know a 3700x is the heck of a machine, and quite enough to stay in AM4 (mainstream AMD) for now, but it always depends. Also, the 4000 series are going to be great: You could wait just a bit... TLDR version, even for this case I'd get me a 3700x, 32Gb RAM, an SSD (at least 0.5 TB) AND at least a 4 TB HDD (surely configuring the OS and the apps in the SDD, saving only the current working file in the SSD, but being ready to swap the SSD for a new one after some time), and a nVidia 1650 or 1660. Or the 3900X if want a CPU that rivals with the intel i9 9900K in certain professional scenarios where the single core top clock is more important (which is something becoming more and more of the past). But really, the 3700x is quite good. Note that difference between the 3950x and anything else AMD mainstream, or intel mainstream, is quite larger than, say, the 3900x and the 3700x. The 3950x is sth I have a VERY hard time calling mainstream, tho technically, is. EDIT: BTW, CES is I believe the 7th this month, the day after tomorrow? I also think AMD might show a first desktop series 4000 (Zen 3) there, or advance some info about it. It's just 2 days of waiting... If it were like waiting till October or half the year, I'd understand an immediate purchase of whatever. But not only for the series , also as everything else could lower the prices. Even intel. In some bits I've read the performance increase over series 3000 is 17%, in other places, that it will mean much more.

In that thread they talked about the 22E. I guess is the same with the 22R, then.

Random idea: Have you checked through the "more" button in the PDF export tab, that all options are set to rasterize nothing, so that it does not, well, rasterize anything, and so it'd keep being vectors?

Oh! The girl is a 3D model (originally made so, I believe).

Yeah, well, about that... I keep thinking you are not fully serious with these statements, so, am not offended in any way.... .... In Japan, manga (a style which is not my cup of tea) comic production is a huge industry. Is not only read by the young ones, Japan is different in that to other countries. And another example of content for the younger ones, games could also be considered kind of a product mostly for younger people (even if today there are legions of 20-30s yr old gamers, still the consume is more massive with teens) and yet it has been said in several occasions to move more money than the film industry. Heck, half of the companies I've got a job at. An art director (and each specialist of these) needs to master Zbrush, Photoshop, 3DS Max and or Maya, or if in charge of the cinematic, maybe is Houdini, After Effects, etc. Serious as heck tools, very technical and moving mountains of money. There's nothing more, er, serious than doing well a complex UV Mapping of the mid or low res cage of a 3 million triangles model, or a complex face rigging, or a full PBR workflow. Yep, a logotype and visual style guide for the corporate image of a company, or photo retouch for magazine covers (been there, too), or even the company brochures for their latest products might sound like "more serious", but in the sense that both can move a lot of money, and the level of professionalism can be high or low, but only depending on the individual in charge, then, there's no point on considering an entire field more a case of child stuff. I respect your opinion, though, if you think so, but cannot agree, from all what I have seen and experienced. Even in the area that kind of would "sound" as more of a total teenagers' land, the actual manga comics creation (except in Japan), which has been mentioned when speaking about Krita... The other day I watched an EXTREMELY interesting video (I'd post the link, but we're all already off topic ) of an interview to the director of a Manga comic studio, and the several workers there, and it tells you since minute one, how much of a serious and successful business is manga there. Not only because these people work non stop since 6 in the morning, full day non stop, but for the level of production, money involved, discipline, etc. It is is having even a greater moment than what I knew back in the 80s in European comic. What is even funny about this aspect of the conversation: (having worked at both types of stuff) I would TOTALLY say game art (2D or 3D) gets in some details way more technical, with more depth and more complex workflows and pipelines than the most complex projects I needed to solve as a graphic designer, of just in image editing roles. Of course, graphic design requires a certain perspective and background. But so does painting. Painting usually requires deep studies in anatomy, perspective, color theory, lighting, composition, etc. Typically BFA's level studies, at least. I have taught people how to do some basics in design and image editing, in months, and the person(/s) has become a good piece of a team, even if needing to supervising/polishing. Is a ton harder and longer to teach the art matters, to improvise that, usually impossible even in a full pair of years. And to good level... fully impossible unless solely dedicating all your energy to teaching that to that person, for quite more years. I know is off topic, but we're all gone that path, and that one statement, even as a light joke, I believe deserves a comment... As is not the first time I read or hear about it. For quite some people there are some misconceptions about the whole thing of "seriousness" in a particular field.

It'd be an "upgrade", in any case. Anyway, I didn't take the statement too seriously. I'm both trained in retouch/image edit (and graphic design, 3D, etc) and painting. And... indeed it kindda all is related. A recent fix on the brush system (actually, more of a fix to how the tablets are handled, as have affected positively many other tools) IMO will help with accurate masks and lasso selections, freaking key in image editing (we all know it, but not all image editing is photo retouch). The problems are more related to the core than being a matter of a super specialized field's features, than one would think, IMO. All that said, am not crazy about that RMB wheel menu feature. I never use it in Krita, indeed. All my requests are related to actually consolidate the already VERY powerful painting features in Photo. I don't think we badly need more than that. A solid brush system, that is, without problems, in its very basic features (it has flow, opacity, stabilizer... not that basic) is all one needs to create a master piece. I don't need one-key instant mirroring or symmetry painting, that wheel, or perspective guides (I'd paint without those anyway in any real canvas). Only what they are already doing: Like the fix in the precision issue for tablets; which, as I was saying, has surely helped a lot of other tools' precision with tablets. And most of the people seriously working in retouch for magazines, photo labs or etc, it seems they heavily use tablets (I've used it a lot during years in image editing). So.... the CORE issues of a brush system, or the tablet issues, or issues when working zoomed-out, etc, are needed as well in image editing; would benefit image editing largely. Just keeping in that track (in which they seem to be now) would rock, for me (and any other similar digital painter). My 2c , in what relates to painting, before worrying about anything else, IMO, the priority should be that the brush system is error/problem-free. For the benefit of... practically all fields, even if painting is the one getting more out of it. In retouch, is super common to touch up those ugly spots here there in the skin, with the brush, not only with the healer or clone stamp. I'd see the wheel a great feature, for those who need it. I... dunno, I'd fix the brush issues first....As if not, what would be the point... Anyway, that's a bit of a dumb statement from me, as I don't think is as much "this vs that", or "this before that", but a more complex matter. So... while I believe not every painter (speaking from experience) would love the wheel, as is optional, no harm, and what I just meant is that I kind of suspect it's not fix the brush or add a wheel. Or... do the image editing features or add the wheel. But more of following an established plan, in order, or how possible is this or that with the current code base, libraries, and I'm guessing a huge etc. ( ...although, yeah, a big factor surely is that they don't have an Adobe staff's size.... )

It is a different type of software, with very advanced requirements and UI space and UI distribution. Yes PS embeds everything in one solution, but is not often ideal. I am not against it, though.

Lovely !

I'm embarrassingly guilty of not having had time proper time to fully test (I don't want to just lay some brush strokes) it yet, as super eager as I am of doing so. And is not a small improvement, is HUGE. I plan on painting mostly (will keep using other apps that I like) with Affinity Photo, as is super comfy to have such range of raster tools and features at your disposal while illustrating, and am a pure digital painter, that is, no vectors, only raster -thus, my ideal illustration package is closer to A. Photo than Designer, tho the latter is an amazing vector-raster illustration package. I use it a lot for my vector works (now for all my graphic design and small parts of my 3D tasks, for silhouettes and stuff), and to be sincere, I did not believe I'd end up using it so much. Even while I keep yet using Inkscape as a companion- ... and I realize how good Photo is becoming (well, all the suite is getting this, IMO). These are lucky years... When I think on the software landscape we had in the 90s...

I'll be brief (edit: Nah, I wasn't... ) so that the OT vanishes Anyway, in this one the OT stuff is hidden in a spoiler tag (click on "reveal..." if interested). I'm a professional graphic designer, self-employed since 1988. Yep, it was not in a negative tone.... I'm a freelancer, too (employed at several places more or less from '95, till 2013, since then, made the big jump. Full time freelancer) One question, why PDF/X-3 ? I typically use PDF/X-4 with Affinity (and mostly with anything else). As the other one version I'm asked for often by a print company is PDF/X-1a: 2001. Rarely PDF/X-3. Of course, might be a client's requirement. Well, let's hope your issue gets ironed and you find a way to deal with it and still being productive. I've found my own paths and tricks to be able to work with the Affinity suite as the main integrator pack (not having got yet Publisher, am kindda a slow adopter, at times ;D ), and I am mostly doing all production with Affinity suite and several other apps and utilities. I hope they look at that file and exported pdf, and between that and your own experience you can find workarounds.

(fast note to point out that he is exporting also an elliptical gradient, not only the circular gradient)

Well, indeed, yep, Inkscape has had a long life of issues in the Mac. Indeed, as Inkscape 0.9x is a 32 bits app, not supported for Catalina. They say the next 0.9x release is gonna support fully catalina, tho, but dunno till what extent. I know their very much announced 1.0, which seems is a deep revamp in many things, will entirely support, fully, Mac OS, for once. And there's compiled development versions already which you can grab. Inkscape has never been a terribly stable app anyway, so, it might quite worth it for mac users to use already 1.0, depending on what features are there not yet added in the dev version and how much you get upset with crashes . Anyways, from what I am reading (while I somehow would be able to make use of it) it seems Inkscape 1.0, not even that one would be of your satisfaction, as seems you need the level of reliability and feature set at the level of the current CC. But thinking a bit out of the box, here... you seem very firmly determined to not going back to Adobe for your freelancing or whatever it is. Then I'd recommend doing what I do: accept that until everything approach to "perfection grade" in Affinity side, you're gonna need almost certainly to do combined use of different apps for most projects. Inkscape 1.0 might be super helpful to have installed, even doing all the work with Designer, a 95%. This is literally my case. In raster, for many uses Photo is enough (but I also have a full arsenal of tools always installed, which I use in almost every project). I doubt proper CMYK mode is added to Inskcape 1.0, though, They really never cared too much for such common workflows for print (including CMYK mode, conversion, and detailed, complete PDF/X export, etc)