LilleG

Ohh, I like how it stretches along  a profile too. Like everything else there are pros and cons that why I was listing them. That really part of understand why use one method versus another thats all.
 
As for saving. I am working in the MAS version. I have specific reasoning for doing so. In the MAS version you can save a profile in a per document basis. Once you create a new document that profile is not saved like a style is saved. This means  you have to create this profile every time you create a entirely new document.
 
 
I see you are using the Beta has this functionality been changed in the Beta version? I prefer to create a profile once and then have it saved so that when I start a new drawing  in a entirely new document I don't have to create the same stroke profile every time. or copy and paste the profile and  then save the profile in that document.

Can you please release the damn thing so that we can have our lives back.
Regards  :ph34r:  :)

Hey guys, congrats on all the amazing work on the next 1.5 Betas!
 
A feature request for a decades-old sore point in design software: document palette and swatch creation and maintenance. Productivity wise, I hate having to work on the Swatches palette to maintain a doc's palette. It's a tedious but important task in design and production environments. This is an opportunity for Affinity to leapfrog Adoblow™ in terms of user experience and app intelligence.
 
It would be VERY beneficial if AD automatically and actively maintained and updated  the current document's palette and swatches, perhaps as a per document and/or app wide setting. Meaning whenever one creates an object with unique, unspecified colors or swatches in a document, AD would add them to the document's Swatches palette (as either Global or regular swatches) and if there are any changes, AD auto updates the swatches/palette and deletes that instance (unless it's used by another object in the document). Having to periodically clean out the palter is important but tedious. You get the general idea...
 
Thanks for your consideration and amazing work. Thanks for all you do!

Attached are a set of AD Textured Intensity brushes made from actual brushstrokes from the famed painter.

 

Usually I would not try to make strokes so literal. Nor would I borrow from such a famed source.

In that sense these strokes are a bit of a digression for me.

These are examples of brushes that use real strokes almost exactly. They carry the texture and variety of their source. Thick, skittering oil paint, and swashes of thinner oil run over uneven surfaces. 

 

I have become more and more a digital painter... but I love the texture of natural media. I find myself drawn to digital emulation of natural media. Or emulation perhaps of the texture of natural media - with a digital twist.

I have never deliberately tried to make a textured brush for such applications as Photoshop, Expression3, Synthetik Studio Artist or Affinity Designer - that looked exactly like a natural media brush stroke. 

The idea seems a little too in conflict with what makes digital art potentially its own (great) thing.

 

However. These are very nice, heavily textured oil paint strokes. Great for bold paint looks.

 

Enjoy.

CD_Monet_oilstrokes.afbrushes.zip

I would like to request this too. This happened in affinity designer today. I had a shape with very few nodes and I used the "subtract" function to remove a completely different part of the object. For some reason affinity "re-drew" the entire object and added several hundred/maybe thousands of unnecessary nodes. If It'd had a simplify-function I could have fixed it, but this time I had to backtrack several steps and undo loads of work that took time to redo. I've wanted a simplify-function several times before, but today I would have really needed it. The picture shows a screen shot of before and after the issue occurred.

No problem.  ;)
 
The subject keeps getting brought up by people - and most people don't understand that a lot of these "features" are not part of the global standards. I think we should write a final statement somewhere. :)

The vertical repositioning of the Color Wells as you change from selection or shape to brush has been confusing for me.  I get that the Front color well indicates either Primary or Fill, depending on tool and that the Rear color well indicates either Stroke or Secondary, again depending on tool.  What I don’t get is why they need to change vertical position.  In a shape or selection, Fill is Front and Top but using Paintbrush, Primary stays in Front but moves to the Bottom. It’s not something that you would likely notice unless you move between those tools often as I do.  And I finally put a sticky on my monitor...Front is Primary and Fill!  But I keep wondering about it so I decided to ask.   Is there a reason for the vertical repositioning? 

Whew! All Affinity app purchasers (who had good reasons) are glad to read this. Thanks!

We keep asking for the Option for a light interface.  It would be nice if the devs would tell us if this is being considered or are we just wasting our time asking.  If they're hoping that we'll give up and just accept the dark interface, that really isn't an option for anyone who gets a headache if they use the app for more than an hour or so at a time.  This is not a frivolous aesthetics issue; we need the light option.

The dark UI is OK when options are clearly visible, such as ticked or unticked checkboxes. However when you have a small set of buttons (for example the Typography section of the text Character dialog box) it is not clear which buttons are enabled, disabled or already selected.
Enabled is grey text on a dark-grey background. Disabled is feint-grey text on a dark-grey background. Selected is grey text on a very-dark-grey background. You do not need to make the whole UI lighter, just use colours with more contrast. I have tried to illustrate this on the attached picture using the [Tr] button as an example. 

Hi CartoonMike,
Sorry the delay getting back to you.
Regarding your first issue (numbered files/opening sequence), i've filled an improvement request for this. 
The second issue (closing leftmost document tab jumps to the last one) was already logged as an improvement request too.
Hopefully this will be looked at/reviewed when possible.

I'm closing this topic because it's becoming all about personal beliefs. This topic needed only one response and that was:
 
Thanks for the suggestion, it's appreciated, but Serif does not need to ask for crowdfunding in order to reach completion of this project.

Just bumping this up so this thread doesn't get lost in the newer questions. 
 
This is a (albeit) minor to some issue, but for my workflow where I sometimes have to deal with up to 50+files, some are double page spreads and such, being able to open files in alpha-numeric order is a big time-saver. Especially when going from page to page to ensure things like character continuity and such. Then, the "subtle" color difference of opened file tabs and active file tabs don't really make things easier. I'm resorting to just dumbing down my work flow and just working on one page at a time. It makes things more of a drudge, but at least I don't spend time working on page "X" thinking I'm working on page "Z". 
 
I would love to use A-Photo for more than just panorama (i.e. multiple scans) stitching, but this ordering problem is just making me dread opening up Affinity Photo and doing work on the pages. Thankfully I have alternatives I can use once I export the images... and thank goodness A-Design has great Artboards. It's easier to deal with just 2 or 3 files (containing about 8 Pages of lettered comics in each file) than just 1 page per file, like in AP.

After reading your post, I checked and opened 5 images at once and can verify the 'disorder' in the tabs. I agree they should be in the order the user intents them to be...

It's not the Color Picker that bothers me; it's the click-happy color picker Tool that bothers me.  You have to go grab it and drag on the color you want which inserts that color into the eyedropper, where you can look at it but not use it.  To use that color you have to go click on the eyedropper to insert the color in a color dot so that you can actually use it.  I do not understand why that extra step is necessary or why it is still there after all the complaints about it.  It's great to do things differently from other apps when you do them better but not when they're worse.  Or am I, as is often the case, missing something here?  

Well, the new Colour Picker Tool in the current beta, and in the future 1.5 release will have exactly that activated with the shortcut 'I'.

Good tip from Meb.

Yes, it would be very nice to have LIVE flood fill tool, to fill the area where 2 (or more) objects intersect and automatically refill the area if one object is repositioned.

many have pleaded for a change in behavior of this color picker to be more like Apple's color picker, Illustrator's, Photoshop's etc. Seems Affinity doesn't want to implement what has been a common UI tool and 'knows better'.  Not a day goes by when I use this software and I am bothered by this implementation.  Is there any hope at all Affinity?

... At least to me. 
 
Here's the situation, I'm resizing the canvases of a comic I've scanned in. It's going to be about 50 pages. So to save time with open-change-save-close-open next file  routine, I'm just opening 10 files at once. So far Both Affinity Photo & Design handles this very well. No real slowdowns or odd behavior (using the current MAS versions, not the betas for this).
 
The oddness begins after AP opens files. I have the files named in a sequence: QS no 1 pg 01, QS no 1 pg 02 ... QS no 1 pg 50. So the first ten files are opened. And the order that the files are in the Tabs are not in any sequence I can determine. Maybe it's the size of the file as I haven't checked that yet. But it's discerning to say the least. I'm used to seeing the files in the alpha/numeric order when I open a group of them. Now if I want to see a specific page, I have to hunt for it, rather than scanning the titles. Am I missing something or just the first one to whinge about this?
 
Secondly, after dragging the tabs to have the files be in order, I start working on the lower numbers first. I have the tabs ordered so that the page numbers go up the further right one goes (i.e. page 1, page 2, page 3...and so on). I finish work on the left most file, save it and close it. Now the "active" tab is the rightmost one. This has made me really confused many times. Now after closing the file, I have to click on the actual file I want to work on.
 
Is there some well hidden preference or option I may have missed? 
 
What I'm expecting is that when I open a sequence of files, for them to open in tabs arranged in that sequence; from left to right. Also I expect to close the leftmost tab and have the newly leftmost tab to be active. 
 
While not a bug (I ... think...) this is a slowdown as I have to re-learn NOT to go left-right as I've been doing from birth, but right to left. This is an annoyance that kind of tarnishes an otherwise shiny UI experience. 
 
Is this newly opened tab (files) behavior intentional or is is just "the way things are." Is there any way to either change it or allow the user to determine the order the tabs are displayed? Even if it takes a few seconds, it'll be faster than my re-ordering by hand. Also, can it be an option to keep the active tab on the left  instead of the right when closing an file? Or is this an insidious conservative plot ... ? 
 
Thanks for any answers. 

Hello Mike
Just thought I would let you know that you are not alone in being baffled by the behavior of tabs in the Affinity products!
Indeed, why can it not be that multiple files open in alpha numeric order left to right?
And closing a tab makes the next tab to the right active? Just like a web browser dose and, well, pretty much any other program that uses tabs that I can think of.

Once you have created your own brushes from the Brushes Studio burger, you can export any category.
The result is an .afbrushes file including all the brushes contained.

You forgot opacity.

If I am painting in Photo, sometimes I adjust Opacity for one stroke, or vary it for several.  If we're advocating for more options, let's not start by reducing those we already have.

Except for the wish for more user control of color and contrast, I very much like the current UI.  And since we're expressing personal opinions here, I find the flat, minimalist look not only exceedingly bland and boring but less informative.