debraspicher

Food for thought, though I think that your post is still quite valid. Consider some of us have been here a while. Look at my post count. When I have a problem, I tend to report a bug or write about it on the forum. My post count is not very high at all when you consider when I registered, and it's not like I only post "critical" things. I will say that some of the problems I've had are still not fixed. That's why I think that is where your points are especially valid.

I do agree to some points to the extent I wish an Affinity person would outline in an open letter stating what their future plans are (as well as outline ambitions) so that it can be referred to in the future instead of just "guessing". I would also like this letter to be very realistic. If it's a small team, with a small budget, I can understand there's issues. Transparency is important. I understand if they had a roadmap and it didn't develop out in that order and it had to be taken down because it was misleading people. I think that was. That's something that happens when ambition outweighs realistic expectations. I think it was acknowledged before that was what happened? I don't know that Affinity Designer development has slowed to a "trickle" (at least on Windows), but it has slowed some (the virus surely doesn't help). I think they are trying to keep all 3 programs as consistent as possible with the other and there's cross-program/platform features and other compatibility issue(s) that are being worked on (such as 3D acceleration) and that is making the foundation take longer to set. After Publisher was added, I think that is when it did slow significantly, but I see that as a clear sign they are attempting to compete directly with Adobe because having a Publisher-type app would be important to competing with Adobe's suite. They are still building the foundation, but we are asking about the facade. Once the foundation is there, I feel like the facade can be built much faster when the skeleton (i.e. stasis) is finished. It's just taking so much time. Adobe has a consistency problem program-to-program and I think that's why they feel so clunky for me now. Each is their own beast in their own right. Some people love this distinction. I do not personally. I like the method that Affinity has gone with and how it feels more seamless and not a drag to work with. Sometimes things don't work as they should in the program, but it is not like bugs have been ignored. Some things have taken too long to fix, that is true. i.e. Expand Stroke.

Some features are still missing, but I can assure you the app is still very much under development. It take times to develop something to be so stable and when people are paying money. Especially for the design community who are very critical of even simple changes. They are also writing for multiple platforms, which doesn't help when their team is limited. GIMP has been around for over 20 years, is open-source and so the comparison is not a good one.

Laptop results MSI PE60 6QE Windows 10 Intel Core i7-1600HQ @ 2.6Ghz RAM 16.0 GB (2133mhz) GTX960m /w Intel Graphics

Hmm. I'm just using the standard D.O.C.P profile for my mobo, so nothing special there. I did install the Ryzen chipset drivers and with them, they include the Ryzen power plans that can be enabled in Windows 10 and are optimized for performance. I am using the Ryzen High Performance version. In looking up articles related to it, I noticed that 3000 series (3700X being well-noted) had issue(s) with reaching advertised boost early on launch and so AMD released BIOS fixes at some point after release. My BIOS is upgraded fairly close to latest, so maybe that is a factor as they update ADESA as well. AMD releases tweaked power profile for Ryzen users on Windows 10 https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/matthew-wilson/amd-releases-tweaked-power-profile-for-ryzen-users-on-windows-10/ AMD's Ryzen 3000 Boost-Fixing BIOS Leaks Out, We Test With Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3000-boost-frequency-bios-fix-agesa,40359.html

Interesting. I'm on a Ryzen 5 3600 and my vector section tested significantly higher. They should at least be comparable. Rastor Multi-CPU was in the inverse though. Differences in RAM maybe?

Microsoft Windows 10 Home (Build 19041) AMD Ryzen 5 3600 @ 3600Ghz; Mobo: Asus X470-PRO 32GB DDR4 (3000Mhz) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060Ti 6GB

Thank you all for everything you do. Downloading updates now from account page.

For what it's worth, I'm on driver ver 6.3.38-2 ... my model is in my signature. No problems here (so far). I've had issue(s) with Wacom drivers on Windows in the past that required a downgrade, so it's not unheard of.

Limited tests on my end show better performance with the tablet. Seems quite smooth.

I'm on a dual screen setup. I haven't noticed this issue (yet). A question, but is the monitor it is moving back to set as the "main" display. Many of us use the main display for our applications and secondary maybe for less important, so it's possible others may not run into it as often. Since you're using a Wacom, if that is a secondary display then maybe something changed in the software to trigger this. You can use use Windows Key + Shift + Left/Right Arrow to switch windows between screens instead of dragging. That doesn't move the floating panels I don't think, but maybe you can have a workspace saved that you can "reload" when this happens. At least until it is fixed.

It does, unfortunately. I played around with Coverage Map to make it look better, but didn't try to export it. Hard to know how often I will need to use that workaround.

This is what I needed. Thank you!

I saw a "solution" (painful) that involves changing Coverage Map in Blend Options. This helps with the anti-aliasing issue and doesn't pick up in pixel view as far as I can tell.

Is it possible to add a global swatch from your currently selected fill? I have been using dropper to add.