Mr Lucky

I cannot see how to get the Affinity V2 Universal Licence on Appstore. Does anyone know if this is possible? Thanks

Will we be able to open in or export to Affinity v1? This could be very important when sharing projects. Obviously a specific feature only available in V2 Will not work with V1, but if you are working in very basic stuff such as cropping, colouring, shapes etc.

I certainly hope they allow it to continue for the time of the trial period. It would be so frustrating to be offered the trial and discount, only to find the discount is withdrawn when you have made your decision based on "try before you buy" I'm actually sure it's legal to advertise a limited discount without stipulating the end data anyway.

It mist be somewhere. I'm not sure that is legal to omit important information. There are very tight laws around advertising limited time offers without being fully transparent about the time period.

Yes an upgrade from version 1 to version 2 OkK thanks for the info I couldn’t see it anywhere, I’d normally expect an upgrade price to be less than a new customer price. Sad if not but there you go. Does anyone know if there is somewhere it says how long the discount runs for?

I still don’t understand where how I can upgrade from v2 to version 2 if I already have a licence, so as not to pay for it all over again. I don’t expect it to be free, just want to know the upgrade price and how to get it. I understand there is a discount for new users, but what about existing customers? thanks

Huge apologies for "hijacking" a thread that seemed relevant to Affinity 2. I searched for relevant threads and this is all I found. Please don't blame for a less than adequate forum software! Please can you educate me on the correct to place to post because I also have a question about what limited time means? Many thanks

I cannot even find where to upgrade, I can only find a link buy outright (ie as if I didn't already have version 1) So how do I get an upgrade? Thanks

Big thank you to everyone. For now I am going with the lightbulb (see above) instead of a plug

I like that, maybe not too obvious it's the sun which probably must be round but I'll experiment with that. The view of the plug definitely works better than mine

Thanks and yes I agree about the pins (although at the size it will be displayed that might be moot. Definitely agree about the white strokes and closeness to the base (my wife also said that). But I'm still not sure it would look like a plug. Actually you still get rounded pin plugs for lighting circuits, but most people don't know that! I am thinking this bulb is going to work better because even with more realism, I'm not sure people will get that it's a plug.

I am trying to design a logo for a site based around renewable energy, so I thought maybe a sun and (UK) electric plug combined could work, ie to symbolise electricity generated by the sun. I am quite please with its simplicity but I have a feeling that although the sun seems obvious, the plug could be mistaken for something else, e.g. a grand piano! Doesn't seem to help even when rotated. Bear in mind this is for a UK site, so the three pin plug is appropriate. I'm currently working on an alternative with a lightbulb, but I'd still like to make the plug work if possible Any help appreciated, thanks

No it wasn't. It was all started as curves. Or rather shapes that were then converted to curves. No text.

Thanks that was it! Never heard of that before

I have never used the more settings, usually I just export SVG and the curves remain as curves. And the text gets converted if I had ticked that box (and there is text) However in this case it doesn't export as curves. So I tried again with more settings set as above and the same happens. (however as mentioned there is no text just curves anyway) I

I haven't come across this issue before. I export as SVG. Then when I open the SVG it consists of images. Can anyone please help? Thanks Caf.afdesign Caf.svg

This may just be a preview for approval before sending a master format. What you say makes perfect sense, however when I tried it sampling down to 1200px, the differences between bilinear and bicubic were there, but nowhere near as different as yours. That looks great, way better than mine when I try bicubic. But is the jpg 80 via Affinity or something else? BTW when you say "1.5px of unsharp", what is the factor set to? . I found that radius 1.4px and factor 0.48 seemed reasonable.

I'll need to get permission of the owner, but I could watermark it and save as, which I presume would not lose quality (which seems to be the case, see attached) In the original the ladies' are very sharp. When resizing they seem to lose a lot more sharpness than the background, presumably;y because the bg is rectangular pieces of dark wood or whatever Aha, I am resizing during export, so will need to resize first obviously. I'm not sure how to sharpen. Obviously I can see the sharpen in the filters menu, but I see unsharp mask (?) , Clarity (just seems to make it lighter) and High Pass (makes it grey) I've had a go and uploaded me efforts to compare to original web image Not sure how to mask just to the ladies as it's all one layer. No, it's a professional. So attached are 1 original (watermarked) EDIT: looks like the upload to the forum has compressed it and colours are less vibrant. See original linked here 2 My first cropped and resized export as on site (80% jpeg) 3 My second cropped and resized export sharpened (80% jpeg)

Thanks everyone, very useful info to know that I should rely on Affinity. What apps are recommended? The image doesn't have text, the artefacts are showing people's faces as its' an image of a group of performers. The artefacts show around faces: It is the header here https://musicasecreta.org EDIT: that one has now been sharpened a bit)

I'm not sure this is inevitable, or something that can be fixed. I have a high res jpg supplied by a photographer that is 5553px x 1951 DPI 300. If I export at that size but 70% jpeg quality, everything looks fine. However if I export at the size it will be used for (a website header) 1380 x 485, then the quality is way reduced. I don't mean it is slightly not as sharp due to fewer pixels (because you'd expect that when compared to viewing the full size but smaller). What I mean it has jpeg compression artefacts. Is this inevitable? Is it because the jpeg artefacts are there, but more noticeable at smaller dimensions? Thanks to anyone who can help!

See here, one shape selcted I can fill But here, hold shif to select the other and no fill

Thanks everyone, that answerred my question nicely

If I selct a shape, then obviously I can choose to fill or stroke. But if I select sevral that I want to all have the same fill, then I no longer seem to have the option to fill all of them at once with the same colour. Does anyone know if there is a quick way to do this as opposed to selcting and filling them one by one? Thanks

Thanks so much everyone, lots to try out here.

I am making a landscaping plan and have made a curve representing a pathway, kind of an S shaped curve. To make life easy I have scaled the plan so 1 cm represents 1 metre and this woprks really well for rectangles etc to fine the sq m, but this is trickier for curves. So that I can give the paving contractors a good idea of the area they need to quote for, I'd like to be able to work that out from my plan. Does anyone know of a way to do this?