dominik

Hello Mark,
do you want to keep the picture frame? Then look at the layers palet and make sure the triangle at the left side of the picture frame layer points downwards. This reveales the placed image. Click on the image and hit delete.
If you do not want to keep the picture frame the simply delete it.
d.

Hallo @123,
es ist besser, Fragen oder Fehlermeldungen nicht in mehreren Foren zu platzieren. @Pauls hat Dir im anderen Forum darauf bereits geantwortet:
 
Leider ist das nicht möglich.
Noch ein Tip: Deine Frage ist eher keine Fehlermeldung (bug report). Deshalb wäre es beim nächsten mal besser, die Frage entweder im "Fragen nach Funktionen und Vorschläge" ('Feature requests, suggestions & discussions') zu platzieren.
Es geht mir nicht um Ordnung, sondern Dir zu helfen, am ehesten eine Antwort auf Deine Frage zu bekommen 
Grüße,
d.

Thanks Dom!

Mithferion,
That quote sounds to me more like it's all about third-party commercial plug-ins, not about an end-user scripting implementation.
I don't get excited about plug-ins. I learned early-on in the 80s to avoid dependency upon third-party plug-ins marketed toward users like the plague (as opposed to those aimed at things like production; pagination tools, drivers for NC devices, etc).
Illustrator is the case-in-point. AI users spend a lot of money and time on third-party plug-ins just to add "missing" functionality, like dimension tools, or halftone effects, or better path manipulations. Such plug-ins are typically disproportionately expensive; often costing half-again the cost of the host program, or more. They chronically (and understandably) fall out of sync with the current version of the host program, sometimes lagging behind version changes by months. That is likely to worsen as most of the old-world software vendors have moved toward annual version changes (providing less and less in the way of substantive improvement per version) in attempts to smooth revenue flow.
User plug-ins are seldom as smoothly integrated as would be native features. CADTools, for example, much as many like it, practically constitutes a whole other interface when its active. That's not functional elegance.
To the user, third-party plug-ins are additional licenses and version updates to maintain. Their creators are usually comparatively small firms, which come and go.
Moreover, third-party feature add-ons from all these varied sources are written to interface with the host program, but are effectively oblivious to each other. So adding a collection of plug-ins to a drawing program's interface tends toward grab-bag clutter and sometimes even redundancy. For example, suppose instead of waiting for Affinity to gain its arrowheads feature, we bought a popular plug-in called Pointers4Affinity from a company called StartupA. Instead of waiting for Affinity to gain a dimensioning feature, we buy a plug-in called Rulers4Affinity from a company called StartupB. What's the likelihood of being able to use our arrowheads in conjunction with our dimensions?
That's why Illustrator's 3D Effect resides in its own modal dialog. It's just a plug-in based on a very limited functional subset of the defunct Adobe Dimensions application. Apart from its ability to import a Symbol from the current document's Symbols library as mapping art, it is essentially separate from the rest of the program. Each instance of it on the page is conceptually a "separate document" of that plug-in. It can, for example, turn a circle into a torus (by revolving the circle) OR it can turn a circle into a cylinder (by extruding the circle). But it can't make that torus orbit that cylinder within the same model space.
In short, I consider it potentially self-defeating folly for creatives (freelance illustrator and designers) to allow themselves to become habituated to (i.e., make their businesses mission-critically dependent upon) such add-ons. To my mind, the "plug-in architecture" concept, loudly marketed to end-users as the "next big thing" in the 90s, has been largely a failure.
A well-done scripting implementation is another thing entirely. It empowers the user to autonomously automate his repetitive routines far more powerfully than with just a macro feature (like Adobe's Actions) that merely records a sequence of (some of) the commands available in the standard UI. But moreover, as the user gets his feet wet, he finds he can essentially create his own vertical-need "features" that do exactly what he needs, by using variables, calculations, and conditional logic while accessing the actual objects, methods, and properties of the elements that lay beneath the standard user interface.
Scripting is not for everyone, because it assumes at least beginner level understanding of the language used. But those languages are openly, widely, and freely used standards accessible to any interested user. JavaScript, Python, VBA, AppleScript, etc. By "well-implemented" I mean:
A thorough, well-organized, and reliably updated documentation of the program-specific object model (not of the scripting language itself; that's up to the user to obtain elsewhere). Inclusion in that object model access to at least the basic objects for UI alerts, modal windows, and non-modal palettes, so that the scripter can cleanly present the necessary script-specific user options when the script is run. Clear, simple, and practical examples of using each object. Adobe has done a pretty good job of this; arguably too good by including not just Javascript, but also platform-specific languages (VBA and AppleScript), each of which requires its own documentation. Instead of platform-specific scripting languages, I'd frankly rather see a native program-specific scripting model like in FileMaker Pro. That has a full user-interface, excellent documentation, and being native, empowers the same script to work on any platform on which FileMaker runs, including FileMaker Server.
Inkscape, on the other hand, now sort of "favors" Python, but its documentation (being dependent upon volunteers) is weak and scattered. "Examples" in its case pretty much involves dissecting existing "Extensions" that are bundled with the program. That's not an easy path for scripting newcomers.
Also, bear this in mind regarding the best language to support: Adobe apps are scriptable in Javascript, not Python. Many users, like me, have cut their graphics scripting teeth on Javascript. It would be a relatively short transition for us to Javascript for Affinity. That consideration is compounded by the potential importance of embedding scripts in PDFs. Acrobat is still unavoidable in my workflow, and you can do wonderful things with Javascripted PDFs.
So if I had my heart's desire, Affinity would focus on developing an excellent (as described above) single-language (Javascript) solution to empower its users. That's cross-platform, open-source, full-featured, and has a long-established ubiquity in other environments, including the web.
I would think Affinity has this huge potential advantage: Adobe has to provide and maintain separate and different scripting implementations for each of its products, because they were developed (or acquired) separately. As I understand it, having been developed concurrently from the ground up, the three Affinity apps have the same underlying object model and code base. So I welcome correction if I'm wrong, but I suspect one thorough implementation and set of documentation could enable the Affinity scripting user to learn a single object model for the whole suite. Trust me, that would be a much less intimidating learning curve than gaining proficiency in scripting Illustrator, Photoshop, and InDesign.
JET

Thanks, Dominik - I didn't know this.

Hi @Doug Chaplin,
this is possible. A simple example:
Create a new document with one page and add a text frame to it. With the text frame active select 'File > Place...' and navigate to the location of the file to import. Click on the file and 'Open'. This will import (= place) the document into the text frame. Look for the red text overflow triangle in the right bottom half of the text frame's border. Shift + click on it > this will create the amount of pages and text frames to accomodate the imported text. I hope this helps.
d.

This is true. It really was a misunderstanding on my side. I did not completely understand in your sentence:
'If I am trying to match an existing text frame I do a copy & paste style from an existing text frame...'
that you were referring to a text frame converted from a rectangle. After reading your post again I see the connection, I just missed when I read it first.
After all, something new learned before the end of the week 
d.

In the font drop down list there is a heart shape at the right side of each font entry. Click this to make the font a favourite.
At the top of  the font drop down list there is a button to only display favourite fonts.
You also can set defaults for the tools. I think this was explained in other threads already. It works for the text frame tool, too 
d.

You can do this with layer groups in AD already. And there is also snapshots 
d.

There are different ways of working/designing. Some people build their designs from basic shapes and then cut off the parts they don't need. This can be accomplished with guide lines and adding nodes and breaking the shape. The knife tool would simply cut through. Preferably with a SHIFT+click and perhaps snapping along a line across the canvas.
Personally I am happy with the node tool and breaking apart. Or the geometry fuctions. But the knive tool can be a shortcut (no pun intended) in some situations.
This tutorial gives you an idea of what can be done with it: 
 
Cheers,
d.
 

That is true, I did not think of placing placing the PDF multiple times by displaying their different pages. @haakoo, thanks for this. @Muhd, sorry for the partially wrong information.
d.

That's an interesting suggestion.
Another approach would be that the to come DAM takes care of this. We're speaking of syncing all the digital assets within the Affinity suite. I sounds logical to me to use the Affinity DAM to take care of this 
d.

TYPE FOUR
How could I forgot? Another kind of Distortion that some might find useful is to adapt text into some specific shape.
The idea is as follows: the ability to fit text into a shape, like this one (again, with editing capabilities):


So, yeah, with this one added, I know it's A LOT to cover, but please, take it into consideration for your internal Roadmap.
Best regards!

I want to add one more thing that come to mind as you write 'constrain'.
Holding down SHIFT key constrains to horizontal or vertical movement as we know from other tools.
d.

Hi @Mithferion,
thank you for summing this up. For me the most important thing would be fine control about the transformation(s) including snapping if needed. It also would be good to have this non destructively (as you point out) and keeping the transformed objects editable. I think the existence of 'Isometric Mode' is a hint on what we can expect (or what is possible).
d.
PS: Saving and reusing transform settings (like 'Paste Style') would also be a great productivity feature.

Hi there!
DISCLAIMER: First of all, this is not another "bring the Mesh Warp / Distort Tool right now!" Topic. I'm not asking the Team to give us an estimated time of arival... None of that. It's something different, hinted in the Title.
INTRODUCTION & INTENTIONS
The purpose of this Topic is to share my thoughts and considerations, specially with @MattP, the talent behind this and some other great Features, to keep in mind when developing this. Why? The reasons are simple:
Some of us are more than impatient to have this Feature available. It's been on the Roadmap for so long... Many need this and they are all in into Designer and lefting [Design Application] behind. There are high hopes and so much anticipation. And it's in the Dev Team plans. That's all good, but... is the gap between the Dev Team idea and the users need really been closed, even narrowed? When realeased, will it be what a lot of people are expecting? That's the key point that might turn things ugly here in the Forums.
So, I want to open a relaxed discussion to talk about needs, capabilities and workflow. I will do so by diving the kins of distortions I know in 3:
TYPE ONE
Miscellanous Specific Forms Distortions:
Topic 1: Arc Warp. @TonyB confirmed it will be doable as some other transformations. Said feature works like this for texts (but also for shapes), in Illustrator 2019 and on other Apps like PSE 10:

The other transformations available are this ones. Available on both Apps but they don't work exactly in the same way:

 
Now, the thing about these transformations (and the other Types) are these ones: Control and configuration. They are done through a set of parameters, not through a Mesh like the one in Affinity Photo. so, it's not just that it's doable, but that it's repeatable and done with a degree of presicion. And of course, it has to be editable and resetable, or as it's called nowadays: live. For example, trying to do it through a Mesh is not that great (the red one is done by hand after a lot of struggle, and it's no good):

That's the Arc Warp but imagine this for all kind of options known to man.
TYPE TWO
The next thing is about Perspective, whis is another popular requested feature.
Topic 2. This is really clear as what it has to do. Not just of one object, but for an entire Group, to do a pseudo 3D thing. On this one, DrawPlus does a good job and offers interesting options, like the slider on the Top part, and it gives the sens of working with a 3D object.

The one in Illustrator does its part, but once you transform an object, you can't have the original back, so it's a destructive effect (making this a live feature would be awesome).

If the angles of "rotation" can be in the form of parameters and mouse control, would make it cover all scenarios.
TYPE THREE
The last kind of Distortion people ask for in the forums is the Free Transform.
Topic 3. This is the one that sounds more like the one currently present for bitmaps in Photo or the Envelop Tool in DrawPlus. Personally, this is the least I am interested in, but it has its uses and would make this feature as robust as it can be.

I see there are two variations to this feature:
One with the handles, as seen on the previous pictures. One with "sharp" cornes, without the handles (it's almost like a Perspective Distortion, but I present it like a different one because with a perspective you should be able to maintain the aspect ratio, with this one you can go beyond that). In Illustrator, the Free Distort Effect does this in the "sharp corner" fashion, turning it to semi-curves in some extreme distortions:

As with the previous ones, the ability to reset and edit the effect on already distorted objects, would be gold.
SUMMARY
As I said, when talking about Distortions / Warping, most people have one or more of the three I showed. So, I leave some key points:
Having all of the three types listed above in Designer is the best thing that can happen in this regard to Serif and us the Users. Also, having the ability to reset, edit and have parameters in some of the cases, would provide absolute control (and enjoyment). If the Dev Team implements this one after the other and not all in the initial release, even if it's not desirable, is still a good path. Limiting to one or two of the Three Types "by design" would hurt the product. Very important: I'm not saying "copy this and copy that", I'm just showing examples of the possible use cases for a Tool like this; however it's implemented, as long as it's logical and feels natural, offering all of the capabilities presented, would be perfect. So, citing Matt himself:
I want our products to be good in their own right: It’s not good enough to be better than ‘x’ or ‘y’, you should just be really good and that be the end of the sentence
I expect from you what you have set as your own goal: the best possible Affinity Designer.
Finally, I invite anyone who wants to contribute by bringing examples or something they want for this Feature that I missed.
Best regards!

I suspect complex LTR will come first as for the most part, it has to do with (maybe completely) via adding the OpenType features required to handle the substitutions needed.

Other than when you first arrive I am unclear how to find this page to use it. So how do I find that page having used the side navigation? Please can I have a Home link at the top of the list on the left and a search icon on the toolbar bottom left both of which navigate the main window back to index.html. (or is this there already?)

OTOH, if one needs or wants to create an object that consists of several fills and strokes plus layer effects it could be done with independent layers. It's a workaround but would work right out of the box.
It might be harder to edit afterwards, though. It really depends on the design.
d.

It's about seperating character styles and paragraph styles.
d.

That was the case for Inkscape for a very long time, and work could be done. But I am not denying the need of adding TGA format. I have worked at four game companies (made 10 games in a year in certain mobile games one, 5 almost alone as an artist, and TGA was a constant need. Yet I'd have to convert, better say, batch convert constantly. To and from a gazillion formats) and I know it is yet a very key format. Specially with some old but "revived" game engines, that happened to survive and adapt, to be today the reference for indy and medium size development (not so much AAA big titles, btw, where each house has its very different pipeline, and often custom engine).
I see the need and the advantage in Affinity sells with a relatively small feature to add.
But in the meantime (not saying this to discourage the addition of the feature!!)  XnViewMP does convert very well to tga and from tga. You can use the image browser or the only-converter, XnConvert (just study the features to check what's best for you) ,  I tested indeed  XnViewMP from PNGs and other formats exported from Affinity, it quite works. 
https://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/
https://www.xnview.com/en/xnconvert/
The batch convert option is particularly important for games (frames, or any sequence,  packs of textures, etc)
It IS free.  Scroll down a lot the page, is after the purchase data (is a full page long). huge advantage for a studio that is fully cross platform (win, mac, linux)
It is NOT an ideal solution for a company that is planning to buy 20 licenses for 20 seats (because in that case you want uniformity, and have the most complete and polished workflows possible...but with what is saved in 20 seats... heck, I'd find a way...), I know . (in the places I worked at, whoever in the staff (pretty talented in the 4 places)  would just code an utility in C++ to convert the output not only to tga, but also to whatever the game engine needs to eat... but... whatever). It'd be WAY more than enough for me, as I tend to use a bazillion utilities in every game company (or advertising agency, regular software dev, or whatever) , often doing this with batch-capable utilities and even putting python scripts to scan continuously a folder to go converting depending on whatever parameters.
Even admitting its importance, I agree with what was said by someone above, is not enough of a reason to decide or not to purchase a 2D suite or raster app, IMO. And I say it knowing deeply the game dev scene (and video editing works) , having worked at mods, shareware games, indy development, companies, etc. But would certainly make game artists' life easier.
 
PD: I still believe that what is needed is not just a format (TGA). But also a way to handle the alpha channel (and channels in general), which imo people is expecting it'd work just if TGA is added (while maybe the staff is thinking it's only about adding an export format). I mean, imo the app needs more work to replicate the same works in games that are done in PS which end in the export of the TGA (and importing, in a full cycle of I/O with some complex worflows, often)

EDIT : Cr4p ! Sorry folks, seems I had already mentioned it, even in this same thread's page, lol... Is just that as I saw the recommendation of a paid software in a very recent post (which surely is also good), XnView is free, I believe paid for commercial (I'm not very well versed on till what extent is that needed: "If you intend to use XnView in a company, you must purchase a license." ... TGA is not a vital need for me anymore (I have a dozen other ways to convert it, as well))  use (but ridiculously cheap),  it sounded to me as it hadn't been mentioned (these super long living threads...)  and XnView has the very important advantage that, as tested by several, serves as a very nice assets browser for Affinity, as well as counting with its batch (or not) converting and other extra functions (and is an utility quite polished along the years, I remember its beginnings, and with a very good general following).

(...)

Hello @Anstellos,
you are not alone with this request. There are several discussions going on where you might want to join, e.g. this one:
 
There is also a statement by one of the officials from Serif that they are working on this feature:
Cheers,
d.

Ah, thank you so much, Dominik. Yes. Done.

I don't think you are asking too much. It is a valid suggestion and we will see if the Affinity team will make something out of it. Just don't expect to see it next week 
 
I am sure we will see an enhanced layer concept. I mentioned above the discussion about 'global layers' and these are related to your idea, too. I could imagine a simple option in the spread setup like 'create folder per page' would work (I wouldn't call them artboards because there needs to be a distinction from artboards in AD). OTOH we have to keep in mind that eventually we will see spreads with multiple pages 
Cheers,
d.