wesleyb

I am late to the discussion... I also experience a discrepancy between the gutter value that is supposedly stored, and the actual rendered result of the gutter. I see that video as a clear illustration of the problem. Thank you, @Luca H, for providing it. @Patrick Connor, did you see the video? Do you see a discrepancy?

Seems fixed. Tested in Affinity Designer 1.8.4 (macOS 10.15.7): Two instances of a symbol "btn" in a symbol "header" appeared synced (solid orange line, not dotted orange line). A change to one instance, of two instances, of a symbol "btn" is synced (with the other instance). After "Sync" is deactivated, a change to some property (ex: stroke color) one instance, of two instances, of a symbol "btn" is not synced (with the other instance). After "Sync" is reactivated, a change to an unchanged property of the deviated instance is synced (with the other instance).

I add my vote. Forum posts seem like an inefficient means to quantify support. I have also "Liked" the original post. What is the official and effective way to add community support for a feature?

Okay, thanks.

Oh, I just watched a video tutorial for Affinity Publisher about "Linked images". It has exactly the feature I had hoped for, and still would greatly utilize. Are "linked images", as available in the Affinity Publisher Beta, coming to other Affinty products?

I agree that users, and I add that staff, could benefit from a public issue tracking system; but, there are disadvantages for staff (non-technical wall-of-text bug report spam, exposure of sensitive internal communication). I have reated a feature suggestion post that attempts to solve the disadvantages of both sides, and hopefully will promote constructive discussion.

I am using Affinity Designer 1.6.1. In my 2018 follow-up post, I embed the file. The behaviour matches MEB's statement "Affinity Photo and Designer both embed 'the placed' files in the document without any relation with the original external file." I think, when authoring the original post, I "linked" the file, because the verbiage was different many versions ago. I accept this behavior, and have worked with it for years, now. That all said, it would be great to have a living relationship between an embedded document, and the original document that was embedded, so that I could share changes across documents. I imagine that feature, which does not seem to exist in Designer, as cross-document symbols; such a feature could serve, if it worked well, as a replacement for per-document symbols, which are woefully buggy.

Known Situation I am aware of the following: Serif code is not open-source, so direct public access to an internal issue tracking software is not likely. The forum itself is not suitable for bug tracking. The forum is not used as an issue tracker by Serif. A forum, for non-tecnical bug reports, is understandable, because a user may produce a wall of text, that must be parsed, tested, and converted into a technical bug report. Request / Suggestion Provide the users access to a pre-filtered view of the issue tracking. I.e. users would be permitted some or all of the the following: see list of issues see platform of issue see related milestone see kind of issue (feature, bug, defect) see status of issue (in progress, queued, backlog, pending review) see date of last activity on issue subscribe to activity But, users would not be permitted the following: view internal communication about issue comment on bug Benefits Managing forum posts, that discuss the same bug, could then be as simple as linking to a single bug report. Answering new forum posts, that ask about the status of an old known bug, could be as simple as linking to a single bug report. Users can be informed clearly of known and unknown bugs, thus reducing requests or losing loyalty due to abandonment. Status update posts, of project milestones, could be made with less effort.

After having been using linked files, I noticed this unanswered post. The feature name has changed, and it does not behave as expected, and the "sub-feature" requested is incompatible. Instead, 1. User places design file #2 into design file #1. 2. User saves and closes design file #1. 3. User moves or edits placed design file #2. 4. User opens design file #1. 5. The placed design file that was from placing design file #2 is not updated. Placing a file embeds the design into another, but does not retain any reference nor link to the design chosen from the file system.

I understand linked files have been requested, and that request has been heard. I hope that when linked file support arrives, the following scenario is possible: 1. User links file into design document. 2. User saves and closes design document. 3. User moves linked file to new directory (during after-the-fact organization). 4. User opens design document. 5. Design document automatically updates link to file to respect new location. Is this something feasible to implement with the linked files feature? If so, would there be benefit to having the sub-feature be optional? Moderator Request: Please add something into the title of this post to represent the specific sub-feature being requested. I apologize for not being specific initially. I do not see how to update it now.

I have added an SVG as an embedded document. Doing so is my means of using "symbols" (which don't seem to exist yet in the form of a symbol library, nor linked files) between Affinity Designer documents. When I export the parent Affinity Designer document as an SVG, the embedded SVG documents (which contain only vector shapes) appear as raster images in the resulting SVG export. Though I understand it being tricky to export PDF contents as vectors, I thought SVG would be less of a problem. 1. Is the exporting of a document with an embedded SVG document, while preserving the vector of that embedded document, as tricky as doing the same with an embedded PDF document? 2. And what about if the embedded document is a .afdesign file (also contains only vector shapes)? P.S. My point in exporting to PDF and SVG were tests for two potential use cases: 1) exporting to a format legible to Adobe Illustrator, and 2) exporting to a format that I could animate in a web page. P.P.S. I tried exporting a file with an embedded .afdesign file (only vector shapes). The result was visually more appealing, but still a raster.