SrPx

I would try disabling "Enable Open CL acceleration", as I can see it is checked, in the video... It (any brush) goes perfect for me (in Photo), there must be something different (and I definitely have that disabled; when I activate it, the brushes start lagging. Don't worry, it still will use your GPU). The other thing different is that you have BOTH flow and accumulation varying by pressure (is there a reason for that?) I usually have only one value varied by pressure: flow, as is what gives the painterly build-up. For my brushes more dedicated to digital painting, I indeed set only flow as varying by pressure (as I change size constantly with wacom's ring). But for others, I set flow and size (a little bit only, in the case of size). Maybe that could be affecting too. But IMO the major red flag is the open CL thing activated. I would even restart Photo (exit and start it again, I mean) after you change that, to be sure. Here brushes go blazing fast. Maybe is the PC, the hardware, memory, GPU or CPU. Mine is a Ryzen 9 3900X, 32GB RAM, and a nvidia 3060 12 GB VRAM. I even save the files in an old HDD, and photo is on it, too (my Windows runs on a fast m.2 SDD, though). What size is that canvas ? (in a very huge canvas that could happen, and many other operations). Have you checked the Windows Task Manager (ctrl + shift + ESC ) to see that no other app or tsr, process, is somehow consuming many resources? (sometimes happens). But my strongest suspicion is the Open CL not being disabled. As I had that problem with even different configs and different PCs.

Edit: I just hid a wall of text above (still there, but people would have to click it), as was not very on-topic; mostly I was talking about some nice things/tricks/uses I found in Inkscape, replying to Debraspicher about the matter. My usual take can come as weird, but I got these (bad?) habits of working with any number of tools in a project while in the game jobs. In the morning I'd be constantly switching between Max, Maya, the UV mapping tool, and like 2 or 3 worse than pre-alpha tools (now... those redefined for me the concept of "fest of bugs", geez. But I got used to it) coded by our programmers to integrate stuff in the engine, or engine editors, etc, and maybe in the afternoons, evening, night(some times till crazy hours) PS for the textures while alt tabbing with a 3D painting tool, pixel art for a mobile version, etc... So, in the end, I see it just as a bunch of pixels, vectors, or polygons that I move around, like in a cheapo tour around Europe. Caring only about the final result. One of the reasons I don't worry much about the Canva thing. I fully understand the small business owner with employees. But I would like to think that even in that case, you could do as I've seen done at some companies I've worked at. They would even lock down (to any exterior contact ) machines with an OS 20 years old, and similarly old software, to ensure the workflows were kept intact, and to avoid new investments in software (back in the day software was a lot more expensive, they would have paid Affinity's licenses yearly, and very happily). They could do that with 2.4 or 2.5 (or etc), if the worst happens (while I don't think it will). Even the more pessimistic assume that a v3 would happen, that's maybe some time ahead of updates and "normal" use. After that, the (small companies') teams with employees could do that "conservative" approach that I mention. I dunno, in my experience, things needed for the job in 2D, DTP, etc, are usually the same for almost decades. Hence why many people and companies could just stick to CS6 and even earlier, for so long.

No PDF/X export (not a single version... and before getting quoted, I know, it's said to be coming before 1.3...but IMO, that's a major feature for pro work, should be there already) which a lot of us need for almost every gig/project for serious print output. And having tried it, I have found bugs (and some strange workflows) even in the very first fast try (confirmed later several times). Still, amazing software, with many features for inkers (I'm kind of one), and it is very much worth the bucks (I'm a 'software collector', so it is not "this instead of", but "and"... still haven't bought it, though, that lack was too important). So, a great software with certain lacks and bugs, just like I would define A. Designer (I like more Affinity Photo, but that's me) or how I would also describe Xara Designer Pro. Too many years since I used Corel D. for work, though, and the permanent license price is out of question, with the current competition. I don't see many advantages (no real winner among all these, imo. Corel, maybe) in one versus the other or the other one, except when/if needing certain workflow or feature for a project or bunch of projects, as to decide one certain route or another. But in that, I find a lot more useful what Inkscape has to offer me, currently. It's in many of my workflows, indeed, working together with Designer, as fast as copy-pasting nodes! (or exporting, etc) and since a very long while. Indeed, would it (Inskcape) have proper (full) CMYK handling and professional PDF/X export, and some other things fixed, and I'd use it a lot more, almost as my main one for vectors. I successfully do the workflow Inkscape-> Scribus-> PDF/X (just as a curiosity, as I don't need it. And always great to get extra ways, that's my motto), which, btw, besides PDF/X-3 and PDF/X-4, includes the arcane but yet strictly required by some companies PDF/X-1a:2001 (happily, seems Ingram now accepts PDF/X-3:2002 as well) , but I recon the workflow is not yet full newcomer friendly, I needed to solve/guess a number of issues. And I have zero probs with uncommon or hard UIs ...I'd say right now it's more uncommon than hard (just like with Blender). Outside Adobe, I think there's always going to be some kind of trade for no subscription, no monopoly. But yep, those problems in Designer do need to be fixed (and adding the option for "practical" zero smoothing -well, it's always an average, anyway- while drawing with brushes, etc). I suspect that a lot of that will come, step by step.

oki, will do so, as I too hate it when I can't finish reading something... (maybe I'll remove it again tomorrow or so, then) Yep, I often make a local copy of what I wrote before I delete it, mostly if there's some conclusion I want to keep for myself or sth.

Okay, I removed my (too long) post. Might remove many others, as well. (but, yep am pro, several fields...)

Not even in 2D, be it web, print/corporate image, game graphic work, film, etc. Despite having lots of indy studios working with other software (Affinity and many more), the very high end, large firms, etc, it's pretty much Adobe (like Autodesk, Houdini, custom solutions in 3D/animation) territory. Despite being a fact that you can do a lot of high end work with Affinity (as you can with Blender in 3D, but until film companies start doing large productions using Blender, that area of the field is exclusive of certain tools. The technical capability of the tool is only part of the equation). I think Canva is well aware of the current market for Affinity. And IMO, they might want to add new niches or increase/evolve some. As for knowing about Canva (I'm talking about several comments, not just this quoted text) I very well knew about its existence since very long ago. When working with small business owners, and not only having them as clients, also watching and reading material related to marketing, business matters, etc, Canva is everywhere. Tons of times I have handled stuff for some step needed in these users and companies' Canva based workflows, or added/fixed stuff which they started there. It quite makes sense the addition, to empower and help it grow (so, the opposite future of what some predict), from what I have been seeing for a long time with Canva's users. I think they want to expand to a bit higher niche than their current, and compete there, or that their current users are increasingly needing more functionality. Or maybe both. Whether more or less integrated in Canva itself, that would be hard to know, right now. But that they really want that level of functionality and nuanced work, for me that's plain clear. About competing with Adobe... I said it earlier. I doubt any of the alternatives (including Affinity) is realistically hoping to dethrone any time soon the king of the industry (industries) in decades-long pipelines and ways of working which got established through decades in companies of all sizes, custom plugins, familiarity of high end firms and clients, etc. It is a huge ecosystem that, even if it wouldn't upgrade (but it upgrades, a lot, and very fast, I keep up to date with that, even if just a bit, enough to realize it), it would be extremely hard (or impossible) to be really threatened in the high and mid-high end (but... companies. Some freelancers are in my book very "high end", and I know a few that already moved fully or partially to Affinity). At least for some time. Honestly, though, Corel Draw and Xara have been strong competitors in certain areas many years before Affinity appeared, and are still alive, though slightly niche, not a serious worry for Adobe. But they have quite a chunk of users over the world. The same happens with specific apps for certain functionality, which are even better suited than Adobe's for certain activities, (specialized tools, I call them) but this did not put Adobe in danger, either, as a whole. Monopolistic players (monopolies are always bad for us) usually only have themselves as a threat, or regulation/governments, if anything. But Adobe is doing pretty well. Long plans can be ambitious, though (till some point, being realistic), the free for schools and non profits thing is really smart. If it is a strategy. If it is not, kudos for the gesture, anyway... that is similar to how Adobe and Autodesk made most of their huge user base. Not them directly, but it was already so common in many graphic workers' machines (in "that type of license", I don't condone it), even at companies, and I have seen huge industry standard apps and companies fall before (often due to their "way of the dodo" behavior more than by competitors' actions...ie, Mirai disappeared by its own). Like I never saw coming XSI would stop being the leader or a very key tool for the film industry, and it happened. Autodesk ended up "acquiring to eliminate" it, and so it happened (there was a serious overlap!! Maya and XSI, and 3D Studio till some extent), but people feared the same with Maya when this happened, as it was also acquired by Autodesk, too, while the same company acted very differently with Maya. This software had a huge users/companies base, was much a better tool for character animation than 3D Studio (although, 3DS was good for that with certain addons), had a solid foot in plugins, scripts, pipelines in animation (games and film) based companies, heavily production tested... and so, all this made no sense to kill it after acquired, so it kept strong and updated, despite all the dark predictions. There were also bad predictions with the buyout of Youtube by Google, back in the day (2006, if I remember well... 18 years ago....). More even the case as Youtube was losing money (btw, Twitch was acquired by Amazon, and it was also losing money. Did not kill it and still is the main game streaming platform), due to Youtube's servers costs in video and stuff, it was a non profitable company!. And that seems to have worked out darn well (in terms of numbers, or in convenience for Google), currently is the second search engine in the world, and many marketers think of it as the the best tool for promotion. Some of us had thought it would just close their offices, be done and that services similar to Vimeo would take over, as Youtube costs are immense. 18 years ago, though.... So, it's a mixed bag, not always in one direction. I dunno, people is free to think whatever, but I always think about if the buying company has an actual something that is really competing with the acquired product/service (and so, 'acquires to annihilate' ), or if, quite the opposite, needs badly what the acquired company has. Google knew that the future of content and promotion was in video, and Autodesk had no interest in killing the best (some would say that this was indeed XSI, though... I had the Foundation version. At least way less intuitive than Maya, in the UI, for new users) character animation tool available and so, lose all that business. But higher end is super hard to compete with, IMO. The way I see it though, many bosses that I had, small business clients, marketing departments, etc, have a very hard time trying to navigate through Illustrator and Photoshop UIs, while for them Canva is intuitive from the start (one of the main advantages of Affinity is also good UI), and they keep using it. That very low end (but massive! BTW, wasn't the number mentioned 175 million, not 100, neither 75?) market is where they have an enormous chunk of users, and I guess Adobe is not particularly happy about it. I am not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it is a fact, to me. [ About the "professional" thingy, well, at least in art, I have a Fine Arts degree, and besides I really learned painting much before going to college (almost free in my country), and a lot of people finishing those studies can't really draw or paint (sad, but it's that way), as it depends on certain level of personal effort and compromise, mostly, than in any academic studies (you can learn the same on your own! even if harder) and in a way you could say comparable to a master in the US, the fact is that I never considered that this made me a professional in any way. I think a professional is a person able to both solve the problems and do the activity required for an specific profile at a company or to cover a market niche successfully (if working by your own as a business owner or freelancer, etc). Also, a person that has the skills and training (by your own, with courses, or college) needed for what the job profile requires, and who has a background (knowledge and technical capabilities) good enough to adapt to any situation in that field. These skills are most likely coming from a mix of personal study and practice, and the actual professional experience. Still, in many jobs in programming, academic titles are required to even get to the interview, but IMO there's always a place for the individuals who are serious about their job, and good at it, with or without college studies. If not in one company, it's in another] About the main issue, I think a) there are other alternatives, but in terms of export for professional work, stability (yep, some of the competitors, which are very few in doing all what A. does, are a bit of a fest of bugs and lacking key features) and feature set, many of them are still behind what Affinity has. A very small few are in very good shape, though, but for a lot of the Affinity user base, price counts quite. I have paid even 2.5k for a software license decades ago, but these days people even doubt it when it is 300 - 800 $. The other alternatives and FOSS could be used, though, if Affinity ceased to exist (I mean, I certainly would use them). b) the possibility of Canva wanting Affinity to get a medium user ground is very likely, hence not much sense in putting all that money to not use what you just bought. They have absolutely nothing to have that functionality. And yep, I agree with those that think they will make it (even as an standalone suite of apps) highly connected with the cloud. I do not think they will trash the permanent buy possibility, as neither did Celsys, which keeps releasing a very nice ClipStudio full version once a year, for those willing to update it (I did, while I really did not need it, but it's affordable. Still, I like to have the freedom to decide not doing it). Affinity's presence now as an "alternative" on internet articles, forums, reddit, etc, is huge (as Canva's. IMO, some people here did not know about Canva because we are immersed in our bubble of usage, and rarely need to go outside that, it is happening also a bit with social media) and mainly the whole user base is about the permanent purchase option. So, I don't see Canva going against that, it would not be wise from a business perspective, if it would mean losing 2.5 (random number) of the 3 millions users, and surely all the marketing that made Affinity big, once they'd make such thing. So, nah, I don't think they will.

I really, very much agree with the need in Designer of being able to get a stroke, a line, in very raw input (~ish). Like we get in raster (Photo). Indeed, the strange thing is that while you are drawing the line, it stays accurate, the problem is when you lift the tip and it makes the huge "smoothing", even with the stabilizer completely deactivated (it is a very old issue from the very early times of Designer, I remember reporting it with pics). I would have assumed this is impossible in any vector software (unlike in raster graphics software) but I have experienced full accuracy in tools like Inkscape, Illustrator (since many years) and some other. The majority of apps have this kind of excessive "smoothing" (even the current Xara Designer Pro has about the worst of the entire market (quite worse than this), despite being so good for other things). I can draw lines without stabilizer in any software now (got me years to get an almost equal level to how I'd ink on paper...well, it's yet very different, but workable) provided I am using a Wacom device (some others have hardware line wobble). But I know it is very good to have the stabilizer feature for some situations in inking, it can speed (fast) work that is OK to ink with some of that help. The stabilizer feature works well, the problem is not in it, but in how the brush works even without it. With it on, it fixes the most extreme bad effects, but eliminates the possibility of truly good inking, and worse, it makes it almost impossible to draw small features with complex details (while seeing the full canvas, zoomed out). Plus, some sort of smoothing keeps happening, even in very high levels of stabilizer (in a full zoomed out composition, which is ideal in many moments of the process). Reason why I suspect that the problem is in the basic stuff underneath, not something the stabilizer can fully fix. But as an example of usability, in A. Photo I can totally ink accurately, now in 2.4.2. And I very well remember reporting the (considerable) staircase issue (now fixed) while inking zoomed out in Photo, the lag issues, and some jitter. And at least with certain configuration in preferences (this is important in any Affinity app), it seems all those got solved, reason why I am hopeful about getting a similar level of quality with freehand inking in Designer (and as an illustration tool, it should be a critical aspect...). About inking very zoomed out in Designer, I agree, this used to be another issue (very similar to Photo's in that) ...Although! I am not noticing the zoomed out problem in Designer 2.4.2. Or maybe very slightly in some case (in the raw input of some diagonal line, very subtle). I mean during the raw input! Not once lifted the tip as then it does its problematic smoothing thing. The OP's 3rd point is true, indeed, as when the tip is lifted, the more zoomed out, the worst the smoothing effect is. While in Photo it works well. For me at least, the current Photo 2.4.2 (and many previous 2.x) has not this problem while working in a 6500x5600 px canvas (for example) even if very zoomed out. I wish we had this level of accuracy in Designer. I know, it's not raster, it can't ever be the same... But Inkscape and Illustrator got it, so, I hope it is somehow doable (and I know, code bases are very different, etc). So, about point 3., to clarify, I'd say there are two different aspects. That once lifted the tip, it smooths the lines wildly (quite more than it already does in a zoomed-in situation) when the zoom-out is significant. The second aspect, that even in "raw input", it used to smooth and/or add staircase increasingly more, the more zoomed-out the canvas is, in this raw input as well. The second aspect, I am not seeing it as very noticeable (or at all) on the current Designer 2.4.2, but the excessive smoothing once the tip is lifted, definitely yes, and absolutely that the more zoomed out, the more it happens (to bad levels). But! if we can fully disable (not possible right now) the smoothing, then I guess it would not matter, as it would not be doing it at all, maybe only a small, very slight averaging (due to being vectors), trying to be 100% accurate to our raw input, or as much as possible. I suspect improvements in that matter would help as well the people using the stabilizer ( as this feature is not able to really counter it, it happens on top of that, it seems). It would be just a fantastic improvement for anyone doing anything (beyond basic stuff) requiring freehand line work, in Affinity Designer (again, partly an illustration app). But IMO, it both (zoom out augmenting the problem, and the problem itself) are sort of solved with just fixing it by getting a stroke equal or as much as possible, to the raw input (before lifting the pen's tip), as I can notice that in the "raw stage", it is indeed accurate enough, now in 2.4.2, even zoomed out. Probably the reason why in Photo it is is now good. Indeed, it is probably only one problem, that gets intensified when working zoomed out. The stabilizer on top of it can't really fix it. This is one of the most important issues, I think (in Designer). But again, I am optimistic, judging the progress on Photo in relation to the brush engine.

Good catch, Alfrd. 😛

Not... But great design! 😜

@Bit Disappointed I'm curious about this since a while... So... I'm going to finally make the question. If you are so disappointed with the Affinity software, the team, the buyout, Canva, the community... Why not just using a suite, or separate tools from different vendors (there are a few options now, luckily it's not as spartan as we had it the 90s anymore) that you consider actually professional and a better fit ? As you would probably be happier taking that route and saving your personal time and energy, as well. I promise! It is just curiosity. As, me, when I don't like a software because I think it's lacking key stuff and/or I just absolutely dislike it, I do the practical thing and leave it alone, to move to a solution that suits me better. I've seen some people in this same situation, through the years and in a few communities, with different tools. And it keeps me wondering...

It's interesting. Reminds me of a mosaic :).

A huge lot of the beauty in that thread of images is due to the genius of many human artists (and as I am seeing in it, of both 3D artists and traditional illustrators. It is taken from both)... but this is one of the several points in which we would end up as well having to "agree to disagree". We have a different concept of what is art (this has been debated in many forums on internet since the latest and more ground breaking arrival (as it had several) of the so called "AI", many artists are of the following opinion). Art, by definition, has the process of making art as a very essential part (it's not only a final output), the process of an actual human in every bit of this creation, as in, putting each stroke, each bit of expression. And self aware (while doing it and for the overall purpose) because they need to be conscious of their reality, to create the expression called art. Yes, with generative 'AI' there is a human writing a paragraph and pressing a button, but writing what clients used to write on a brief about how they wanted the illustrated gig to be, then hitting a button and waiting it to automatically seed, in my opinion, is not creating art (thus the reason why some judge has declared that AI art can't have copyright. But maybe money will end up bending art definitions, common sense and ethics, in future cases. It is good at doing all that). I am not saying that what you just said is wrong. It is indeed correct to say that someone can get wowed by an automatically generated image. As can be with a sunset, your dog making a tender noise, or one's son doing something nice (but none of that is "art"). I will not go as far as to impose the definition of art to anyone (there are indeed several) although most coincide in that. But to me, having dedicated decades to making art and studying theory involved in it (not saying that I have authority for that; just that it is the obvious conclusion for me after all these years), etc, that point happens to be essential to define art (and so, artists those who do such), and then we'd get into another locked point of the debate. After which, well... I leave this thread... Very interesting debate, but I think we would start going in circles (and maybe making it even more boring for casual people clicking here, or to those who are following it) . The majority will prefer the pretty pictures. Tends to happen with the "two sides" in this big issue, so much that I was very very very close not to answer, initially...maybe I shouldn't have (mental note for the next one). ) Please, R C-R, don't think that I am being impolite if I don't follow the thread...

I believe he refers to the matter of the AI not feeling emotions (neither being self aware in any way) being a problem for it generating art, as, despite that fact, yet considering the "art" which AI generates better or even equal to what a human artist would create, but I could have misunderstood what he said.

Maybe. I'm judging the current situation, only (as it is what I can only examine well: the future is not that easy to predict). Also, I doubt AI would ever have true "human experience", neither conscience, both essential for the core of real artistic expression.

Not trying to make a point, it is a genuine question... but, having (Canva) 175 million users, and lots of money (from what we heard of the acquisition), and that level of things, companies typically do all these operations with expensive (external or internal) consulting and research (not just spent in lawyers firms); it is not like a small business anymore. I really have no idea, as I have no inside info, but all my life, with a pair of large companies exceptions, I have worked in small or mid sized studios (web/desktop dev, design and game studios) and even we, we'd look both for paid and reputable third party consulting when needed (ie, in matters for which we didn't count on experts), and definitely our own research (like, digging forums similar to this up and down like there was no tomorrow, hundreds of articles, etc) . In much smaller operations. Such a expensive operation is typically handled with a lot of experts of several fields, third party companies for consulting, etc, from all I know. But I could be wrong.