Medical Officer Bones

Throwing a left-field curve ball here and mention OpenToonz. 🙂
OpenToonz features an excellent bitmap to vector conversion tool that works for both center line as well as outlined vectors. It will convert black and white and colour art, and works on multiple drawings for animations too! The result can be exported as SVG.
Also handy: the built-in bitmap/scan cleanup tools make short work of cleaning up art/sketches before conversion to vectors.
All for free in this open source animation software (both Windows and Mac) which is used in traditional hand-drawn animation (such as in Mary and the Witch's Flower).
The only drawback is that it will take more of an initial learning effort, but it isn't that hard.
https://opentoonz.github.io/e/
Tutorial:
 

Let's add to that, that there's a reason I always recommend to people here in the forum, who are looking for buying some Apple Silicon Mx SoC based hardware, to not be that short-sighted and buying those limited entry configuration (8/16 GB RAM, 256/512 GB SSD) devices, just in order to save some money on the cheaper side. They won't be happy with these sooner or later, especially if they try to do something non-trivial, aka more memory hungry things, with those machines then.
Having nothing RAM- and storage space wise in reserve here nowadays is always pretty bad, also in terms of growing future software demands, as you can't upgrade those glued in RAM & SSD components nowadays anymore! - So don't listen to these people (the chatterboxes) who then tell you that you can do everything super well on an 8GB RAM Mx hardware based computer, same as they did always years ago with their old computers. 🙉
 

Yes, you're right... but since many years, the virtual memory should swaps to disk and make the machine even infinitely slow... but never crash. One trillion years ago I wrote an operating system for a Z280 processor, a Z80 with Virtual Memory Manager, something that most people never heard... OK, sometimes it crashed, but I was not Apple and the Z280 was not an M2.
The application should not be aware of the available memory, it's an OS duty to make it transparent (besides speed).
I could bet that the crash is not due to memory but to something else. Future releases of APub or a future purchase of a fully-memorized M2 will tell us the truth...
However I fully agree with you, thanks

...I have to ask: are you really that surprised that your 64GB i9 is capable of exporting your ~30GB project versus the 16GB M2 Mac that crashes?
Even though Apple's new memory architecture can deal somewhat with RAM shortages using its unified memory blah blah and its M2 RAM efficiency, the fact remains your M2 Mac's core RAM is seriously overtaxed by your project's memory requirements.
I would actually have been amazed if Affinity would be able to finish that export on the M2 without any hitch or slowdowns!
Your primary problem is very very simple: 16GB RAM doesn't cut it for the work that you need to do with it. That is the straight-forward answer to the issues that you experience.
You'd need at least a 32GB M2 Mac. I speak from experience: I work with 3D files that require 64GB or more RAM. I tested with M2 Studio Macs that have 32GB installed and my files bring those 32GB M2 Macs to their knees at work. The software crashes even when I attempt to load those files. The entire MacOS crashes willy-nilly, and I had to reboot those machines several times while testing. I
In short: it's not an Affinity bug as far as I can tell. It's simply the lack of memory in your M2 Mac: you need at least 32GB to work comfortably within the context of your work requirements. Apple might sing the magical wonders of its new M1/M2 memory architecture and its efficiency, but in real life severe lack of RAM means something's gotta give, either in performance or in stability, or both.
Your solution would be to upgrade your M2 Mac to 32GB or more RAM. I would take it on the safe side and get a 64GB M2 Mac, because your OS, other software running, and the screen video ram gobble up parts of that 32GB as well.
Unfortunately --Apple being Apple-- that means sending in your Mac for a hefty RAM upgrade price or getting a new one with more memory. Nowadays end-users cannot upgrade the RAM of their Macs anymore. 😞

The developer of Photopea (an online-only Photoshop clone) implemented Fireworks file support last December. It works quite well, and allows us to convert FW files to PSD versions (which can be loaded in Affinity). Not sure about pages, though...
photopea.com/

The layer stack UX design is indeed problematic, and it has less to do with the choice of a checkbox as an indicator for layer visibility, and more with the positioning of the checkbox to the far right of each layer row.
Placing the checkbox near the right causes a number of issues:
users tend to focus on the thumbnail and/or layer name to identify the layer they would want to select or work with. Because the visibility checkbox is located to the far right, it is impossible to tell in one glance whether one or more layers are visible: first the user checks the thumbnail or layer name to identify the layer, then the user's eyes must follow the layer row to the right to check if that layer is visible or not.
Our eyes can only focus on a very small area and see details. In this particular case it is biologically impossible to identify the contents of a layer via the thumbnail AND identify whether that layer is visible or not.
This is not an issue in other design software, because the visibility icon/indicator is always placed directly left to the thumbnail. Vice versa, it is also problematic when the user needs to identify which layer contents belongs to a hidden layer. First the eye must identify the empty tiny checkbox, then follow the layer row to the left.
This action is problematic not only because of the aforementioned issue, but also breaks a common rule that Western languages are written from left to right: to move from right to left with our eyes to identify information breaks that basic rule and causes cognitive friction. The above issue is exacerbated due to the tiny checkbox: the on/off state is not clear enough. It takes true cognitive effort to visually identify which layers are visible and which are hidden when a number are hidden and others are visible. Our brain is forced to jump right to left and left to right in the layer stack for each layer, and up and down, double-checking along the way - rather than a simple downward traveling eye movement, capturing both the content and the visibility state simultaneously. An additional issue is quickly identified when layers are locked and layer effects are assigned: those icons are also placed to the right of each layer stack row. There are multiple issues with this: for one, the meaning of the checkbox becomes ambiguous: is the layer FX active or inactive? Or the lock?
More problematic however is the cognitive noise that occurs: our brain is forced to differentiate between these various icons near the right, increasing cognitive friction.
One more issue is that the layer visibility checkbox is placed to the far right and the lock and fx icons to the left of that checkbox, creating an additional visual obstruction for the eye to travel to the left over the layer row to check which layer contents it belongs to. It all adds up to a rather high cognitive effort on the part of the user. From a function perspective the layer visibility and layer properties (lock, fx, blending, opacity, etc.) are distinct and separate. Placing both the layer visibility indicator in the same area as the layer properties only serves to create more cognitive friction and noise. The two should be kept separated. When layers are selected the checkbox colour is kept: a light gray. But the selection colour is a light background blue. In this context it becomes quite hard to visually differentiate between layers that are selected and identifying which are selected and which are not. Yet another hurdle to what should be a simple cognitive task. Placing the visibility indicator to the left introduces a visual cue that organizes the layers better when multiple embedded groups are present in the layer stack. It is well known that readers have trouble understanding a paragraph of text that is set to ragged right aligned (left to right languages): it vastly reduces readability.
It could be argued that without that stabilizing visibility icon column the users' eyes are forced to follow the indented groups - further reducing visible understanding of the layer stack. placing the checkboxes to the far right does not seem to be consistent seeing that checkboxes in the Effects panel are placed to the left - which is more readable, of course. And which then brings to the fore: for what rational reason did the developers decide that placing these checkboxes to the far right would be a good idea? Because they obviously felt that it is more natural to place these to the left of the effects entries. when the user widens the layer panel horizontally, placing the tiny checkboxes to the right begins to make even less sense. Fitt's law anyone? Why make life so hard for your users? Which brings up the last point: should checkboxes have been used in the first place to indicate layer visibility? A checkbox basic meaning is "(not) active", rather than "(in)visible". An argument could be made against the use of a checkbox to indicate visibility, again from the standpoint of consistency: the aforementioned Effects panel seems to use checkboxes within the context of "an effect is either active or not". The meaning of a checkbox to indicate layer visibility seems somewhat ambiguous then. In particular seeing that in most design software with a layer stack an eye icon is used, it seems preferable to yield to common sense and accepted UI practices and accept the prevalent conceptual model, i.e. the eye icon. All of which means this:

It is quite problematic to the user to figure out which layer is visible, and which is not. Even harder to understand which layer contents belongs to which visibility indicator. Our eyes are forced to jump all over the place.
Time someone other than yourself and ask them to identify which layers are visible and which are not.
Simply moving the checkboxes to the left and inverting the colour for selected layers resolves many of the above listed issues:

Now perform the same test with a bunch of users. Time them again.
I expect that the result will be thatit is FAR easier to complete this simple test with the second version. In my opinion the Affinity devs have never properly tested the user experience, and merely went by gut decisions, or whatever.
There exist a number of additional usability and functionality issues with Affinity Photo's layer stack;
customized blend options assigned to a layer are not indicated by a visual cue in the layer stack it is not possible to drag over the visibility indicators (check boxes) to hide or show the content of layer in one motion opacity value is not indicated only three settings for thumbnail size no option to alt-click visibility indicator to hide or show selected layer only (it is really different behaviour compared to the Solo mode) layer colour tagging: similar issues related to the fact that the visibility indicator is positioned to the far right. Colour tagging again is more useful and easier to identify when pushed closer to the actual content thumbnail. Moving the checkboxes to the left is "low hanging fruit". It simply improves usability and UX.

It really is a shame, and the lack of proper 1bit image support is one of the primary reasons why I am unable to use either Photo or Publisher for the comic publishing and technical documentation that I work on.
Publisher only needs to respect 1bit images during PDF export. But it doesn't. That alone prevents me from using Publisher. It is such a basic requirement, but alas!
While the inexpensive PhotoLine (which doesn't even focus on DTP) will allow me to work with 1bit images in layers (unheard of in any other image editor, including Photoshop!) and freely combine with CMYK/RGB layers to output a multi-page PDF/X 1~4 compliant PDF file with the correct separations. I even use it to check PDFs for separation issues at times when I do not have access to Acrobat.
Of course, for more intricate publishing jobs I still need InDesign.

So, beta 2.2 is here, and we can see that some very important features have been added, and with remarkable creativity. Development is proceeding slowly but steadily.
Since new features are announced as possible during the next months, it is hard to say what we will have in Publisher before the end of the year. Just to recap, however, I'll write down what I still miss for my own needs.
- Multipage tables. I work with tabular-heavy data, so I can't really use the current feature.
- Object styles. I have to adapt my content to different styles. The current situation is that I should re-apply the object presets to each object in a publication. With their number easily going over 1,000, this is hardly feasible. I need object styles.
- Text variables. Much of my work is referred to products available in different variants. The name of the product and of some of its features and controls can change. Without text variables, I have to use search and replace, with the imaginable risk of changing what shouldn't be changed.
- Conditional text. Product variants also means an abundance of alternative text and images.
- IDML export. This is a show-stopper for two reasons: (1) interfacing with assisted translation software, and (2) compatibility with my colleagues working in InDesign. While some of them may be wanting to switch to Affinity, this is not always possible for a series of reasons (company decisions, unwillingness to change, prestige associated with the Adobe name, lack of support of RTL languages, incomplete support of CJKV languages). And then, back to (1): they wouldn't be able to use their CAT tools.
- DOCX export. I see this file format as the perfect interface for ePub and Web. The tools I use for this type of work require DOCX/RTF files. Copy & Paste from Publisher may work for text, but the lack of images would make rebuilding the project quite hard.
- ICML import. Not a real show-stopper, but a cause of slowdown. It is the file format generated by Pandoc. I described somewhere else in this forum how to go from ICML to IDML, but it is not exactly a quick operation. Since ICML is just a subset of IDML, it would be very easy for Serif to support it. It's just a matter of adding the file into a <Story> element of a IDML template.
- RTL support. Admittedly, I don't have much control on the work of the distributors using RTL languages. And I know that most of them prefer to work in Word or LibreOffice. But I must consider this as a limitation. And it happens, to me, to have to produce short multilingual documents including RTL languages.
- Better CJKV support? I have still to understand if horizontal text is managed correctly or not. There is an inexplicable reluctance in talking extensively about this issue from our Chinese or Japanese fellows here in the forum, that I can't still get if it can be used or not. And I can't yet, for various reasons, get information from my colleagues (who don't use the Affinity suite, or only informally admit to have it installed in their secret computer).
So, another year of InDesign CC subscription and file lock-in is to be expected
Paolo
 

Out of curiosity, I installed Vectorstyler, and gave it a whirl the past 2 hours. Some observations:
the mesh gradient tool is prone to corruption of the rendered result. Is that a bug?
In the first hour I experienced two crashes. One where I left the program for a while, and it spontaneously self-combusted. That doesn't happen very often in applications. That worries me.
Vectorstyler seems quite crash-prone. I was not doing anything complex, merely placing shapes and feeling my way around. Image effects like the curve corrupt the rendered result as well. Bug?
It has a good vector tool set. It feels somewhat sluggish to work with. I wonder how it will keep up with more complex artwork, since it did start to slow down with quite simple things. I also experienced lags and hiccups all the time during testing. Working with text felt slow as well. Even the GUI panels feel slow to respond. Overall, it feels clunky. Other design apps feel much snappier. There are a number of features that I really like: the Repeater (something I wanted in other design apps), and the Stroke Width tool which I use all the time in OpenToonz and ClipStudio. There are a lot of options to fine-tune things as well. The vector brushes remind me of Expression (remember that gem?), which set the bar quite high. I am not a particular fan of the way image effects are isolated from the layer stack. All in all, it has potential.
I have to add that Vectorstyler is one of the least stable and buggy design apps that I encountered in the past few years. The developers should focus on stabilizing their app and improve the overall performance. In its current version it is still too crash prone and buggy for my taste.
A standard test of mine is to load a certain AI file (artwork not by me, but by Von Glitschka).
Affinity Designer loads it perfectly:

The same AI file in Vectorstyler:

Oops! Not quite-so-compatible with AI files, it seems.
Editing this file is butter-smooth in Affinity Designer. In Vectorstyler it is a trial in patience. Even moving single objects updates the screen perhaps by 2 or 3 frames per second. Which confirms my initial doubts about Vectorstyler's performance with even medium complex art such as in this case.
Vectorstyler is not quite ready for prime time, in my opinion. An interesting newcomer on the market to be sure. But I'd rather have decent performance while editing than a missing mesh gradient tool. What use is a mesh gradient tool when editing slows down to a crawl with medium-complex vector art?
It is also quite expensive for what is on offer in my opinion.
I played around with the Windows version, btw.

I encountered this limitation too. I prepare comics work for print, and for that 1bit black and white high resolution 800ppi-1200ppi images must be created.
While Photoshop has the option to work in 1bit image mode, most of the functionality is deactivated: layers do not work for example. And to composite the line art with the colour plate, InDesign is required to produce a PDF.
After some trial and error I discovered that, as far as I could find, only one non-Adobe workflow option exists. This assumes the line art is inked in B&W at a minimum of 800ppi or scanned at that minimum resolution. I tried a combination of Gimp, Scribus, but while Scribus supports export to PDFx/4 with 1bit transparent images, I couldn't create a good transparent 1200ppi 1bit image in Gimp.
So I do my prepwork in PhotoLine now, which supports 1bit image layers, and these can be combined in the same layer stack with the 300ppi colour work. First I open the 300ppi colour work, then import the 1bit 1200ppi line art, activate transparency for this layer, and remove the white background. Then I add the vector text balloons and other vector elements, and export a PDFx/3 document. PhotoLine miraculously seems to understand that I want a layered 300ppi PDF with a 1bit B&W1200ppi layer printed on top, which was unexpected when I first tried it a year ago. The result is a nice layered PDF which prints the page's colours at 300ppi, the line art superimposed at a crisp 1200ppi, and the vectors at the image setters max res.
If you need to prepare 1bit images, just get PhotoLine for this. Work in Affinity Photo, and convert to 1bit with PhotoLine, and output. I use PhotoLine as a InDesign replacement for this type of work. It's an inexpensive solution to a very particular workflow requirement.
One caveat with both Affinity Photo and PhotoLine: neither one supports an 8bit (or less) indexed image mode. For this I use Pro Motion NG - which is kinda the industry standard for indexed pixel art anyway. If I need to work on indexed images, I open the art or photo in PM, and it converts it nicely to an indexed image. And PM being a specialized indexed image editor, I get the best indexed image tools in the business. Good for textile print prep too, to get remove those anti-aliased edges :-)
So three apps: Affinity Photo, PhotoLine, and Pro Motion NG combine to achieve an even more powerful workflow with indexed and 1bit images compared to Adobe. Not bad.

1-bit mode would be very welcomed.
 
The only image editor that I am aware of that supports 1bit layers with high PPI resolutions and allows these to be combined with 300ppi colour ones in the same layer stack is PhotoLine.
 
Crossing my fingers for Photo's next version that will hopefully support 1bit properly.

I just checked the behavior of the guides in CorelDraw. The handling of guides is perfectly thought out in this program.
These ideas can be used in Affinity.
Guides behave like objects.
They can be:
mark,
select with SHIFT and move e.g. only 3 guides at a time,
move,
copy,
block,
turn visibility on or off,
also copy with the mouse by clicking the right mouse button while moving,
delete with the DELETE key,
change the color of the guide - individually or globally, - individually simply by selecting a color from the color palette,
rotate - when setting the pivot point, the CTRL key forces rotation every 15 degrees.
When copying, moving or rotating the guide, small icons are shown explaining the current action.
Due to the fact that the guides behave like objects, they can also be controlled from the level of the transform panel (position and rotation).
I will add that the GUIDES layer is created, so everything in the GUIDES layer is treated as something to be snapped to - rectangles, circles, shapes, lines, etc.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

Unfortunately for Photoshop users the 3D functionality is being phased out and is now deprecated. Which means it is only available in older versions. Besides, the old 3D rendering in Photoshop is terribly slow and the render quality a throwback to 25 years ago. Not very usable anymore. All the more reason for Adobe to remove it from Photoshop, and long overdue in my opinion.
Heck, even the lighting filter no longer functions properly in current versions of Photoshop! Or panorama editing! All because of the simple facts that these features were reliant on OpenGL (a 3D API) to function.
If you are serious about integrating high-quality 3d object rendering: install a proper 3d render app such as Blender. Which is free, btw.
Avoid Photoshop's antiquated 3d options. Just not worth it.

Original PhotoLine blend object (25 steps, from neutral grey to inner object with gradient applied:

Saved as SVG in PhotoLine.
SVG imported in Designer:

SVG imported in InkScape:

SVG imported in Figma:

SVG imported in Illustrator:

SVG imported in VectorStyler:

VectorStyler still has issues with various SVG files that I have tested with. But I've sent them an example SVG and they are working on improving it.
I've been testing VectorStyler the past week or so, and my main beef with VectorStyler so far is its slow performance compared to other design apps that I use. Editing one of the 25 shapes in the above example SVG is a smooth experience in Designer, PhotoLine, Illustrator, Figma, and even InkScape feels twice as fast as VectorStyler. Heck, even Figma (prototyping app) is absolutely smooth.
But VectorStyler feels slow to work with, despite my best efforts to adjust preferences and despite turning on all the GPU performance bits. I've opened a bunch more complex art of mine in it, and it isn't a good experience at all to the extent that I can't and won't use it. All the features in the world will not help when performance lags force one to push work-arounds to keep things running at a speed that allows for a reasonable work pace...
Mind: I have a pretty beefed up system with a 3080ti and 128GB ram. I've reported the performance issues to the VS developer. Based on their forum posts, it seems to be a known issue and affecting some more than others, depending on the complexity of their art. Hopefully they'll be able to improve it in the upcoming release.

Original PhotoLine blend object (25 steps, from neutral grey to inner object with gradient applied:

Saved as SVG in PhotoLine.
SVG imported in Designer:

SVG imported in InkScape:

SVG imported in Figma:

SVG imported in Illustrator:

SVG imported in VectorStyler:

VectorStyler still has issues with various SVG files that I have tested with. But I've sent them an example SVG and they are working on improving it.
I've been testing VectorStyler the past week or so, and my main beef with VectorStyler so far is its slow performance compared to other design apps that I use. Editing one of the 25 shapes in the above example SVG is a smooth experience in Designer, PhotoLine, Illustrator, Figma, and even InkScape feels twice as fast as VectorStyler. Heck, even Figma (prototyping app) is absolutely smooth.
But VectorStyler feels slow to work with, despite my best efforts to adjust preferences and despite turning on all the GPU performance bits. I've opened a bunch more complex art of mine in it, and it isn't a good experience at all to the extent that I can't and won't use it. All the features in the world will not help when performance lags force one to push work-arounds to keep things running at a speed that allows for a reasonable work pace...
Mind: I have a pretty beefed up system with a 3080ti and 128GB ram. I've reported the performance issues to the VS developer. Based on their forum posts, it seems to be a known issue and affecting some more than others, depending on the complexity of their art. Hopefully they'll be able to improve it in the upcoming release.

It really is a shame, and the lack of proper 1bit image support is one of the primary reasons why I am unable to use either Photo or Publisher for the comic publishing and technical documentation that I work on.
Publisher only needs to respect 1bit images during PDF export. But it doesn't. That alone prevents me from using Publisher. It is such a basic requirement, but alas!
While the inexpensive PhotoLine (which doesn't even focus on DTP) will allow me to work with 1bit images in layers (unheard of in any other image editor, including Photoshop!) and freely combine with CMYK/RGB layers to output a multi-page PDF/X 1~4 compliant PDF file with the correct separations. I even use it to check PDFs for separation issues at times when I do not have access to Acrobat.
Of course, for more intricate publishing jobs I still need InDesign.

It really is a shame, and the lack of proper 1bit image support is one of the primary reasons why I am unable to use either Photo or Publisher for the comic publishing and technical documentation that I work on.
Publisher only needs to respect 1bit images during PDF export. But it doesn't. That alone prevents me from using Publisher. It is such a basic requirement, but alas!
While the inexpensive PhotoLine (which doesn't even focus on DTP) will allow me to work with 1bit images in layers (unheard of in any other image editor, including Photoshop!) and freely combine with CMYK/RGB layers to output a multi-page PDF/X 1~4 compliant PDF file with the correct separations. I even use it to check PDFs for separation issues at times when I do not have access to Acrobat.
Of course, for more intricate publishing jobs I still need InDesign.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

@Little Owl Does this version respect your expectations more? (download the PNG to check)



PS Real-time anti-aliasing of a SVG in a browser generally doesn't produce the same quality as a well-prepared bitmap version that is displayed at exactly 100%. In particular the horizontal leaf and thin lettering pay the price.
A higher quality anti-aliasing is often arrived at when a double resolution image is used and then scaled down. This accommodates retina screens and responsive layouts better as well. Browsers generally do a better job at anti-aliasing scaling down a bitmap image like this rather than displaying the SVG at lower resolutions.
Of course, if the generated PNG image already introduced sub-par anti-aliasing, the above point is moot.
For sharp-edged logo work like this one I prefer to export at a high resolution (~2000px or higher), then scale down to the required lower resolution with the CatmulRom resampling interpolation method. This particular method retains details better than the common interpolation methods and edges remain crisp looking.
(It is not supported by Affinity or Adobe products, however. I use Color Quantizer to perform this step and add a touch of pre-sharpening).
All that said, low resolution can only hold that much detail. If you need better definition, there is only one ultimate solution: edit the pixels and colours by hand like a pixel art artist. The third version above I manually edited the line as well as adjusted the colour of the thin lettering below the line, because the converted version introduced a too shallow gray. Subtle, but it looks better.

I agree wholeheartedly with @debraspicher. Clip Studio's sketching and inking 'feel' are impressive.
My favourite two drawing and digital painting apps are Clip Studio and Krita. I like Krita better for digital painting work and comic colouring personally.
And @debraspicher is on the ball when she mentions that if you have to rely on a stabilizer as a crutch (built-in or Lazy Nezumi) to draw smooth strokes, you are doing yourself a disfavour as an artist. It doesn't help with growing technically, but stabilizers often also introduce a certain identifiable look and feel in a drawing. At least that is my opinion.
Personally I always turn off stabilizers unless to create a certain look.
Obviously if the artist experiences physical issues (like hand tremors) a stabilizer can be a real life-saver.

Yes, CSP's stabilizer is per brush. It can be a hidden setting or can be added for that brush in the panel to be adjusted on the fly. Which means we're not forfeiting all of our brushwork to some great algorithmic overseer. It can set it higher to make a super smooth computer-y brush or just turn it down/off and have the "native" experience. The brush system is crazy good and fine art apps have come a long way. I'm sure Krita is also good as well.

I agree wholeheartedly with @debraspicher. Clip Studio's sketching and inking 'feel' are impressive.
My favourite two drawing and digital painting apps are Clip Studio and Krita. I like Krita better for digital painting work and comic colouring personally.
And @debraspicher is on the ball when she mentions that if you have to rely on a stabilizer as a crutch (built-in or Lazy Nezumi) to draw smooth strokes, you are doing yourself a disfavour as an artist. It doesn't help with growing technically, but stabilizers often also introduce a certain identifiable look and feel in a drawing. At least that is my opinion.
Personally I always turn off stabilizers unless to create a certain look.
Obviously if the artist experiences physical issues (like hand tremors) a stabilizer can be a real life-saver.

Wow. I remember the Lazy Nezumi hack for back when people used it to reduce shakey lines from crappy drivers back in the day. (There was no Pro)
I use Clip Studio for almost all my illustrative/painterly work. Don't let the furor about the subscription for updates inbetween upgrades discourage you. The program is pretty much complete as it is and spoils us with all the guides and features an illustrator can dream of. It is on sale for $30 I believe and includes the 2.0 update.
My question, why force any workflow to fit within the paradigms of one program? I tried this with PS and it limited my creativity by confining me to one workflow. I really suggest to try all the plethora of options that are now available out there and stick to what gives you the most creative freedom and will grow you as an artist.
Also working with your tablet, if you are dependent on something like Lazy Nezumi to get smooth lines, you are limiting your ability to maximize the use of the tablet. Ex: Drawing from wrist instead of shoulder really impacts linework. *However* if the goal is to get crisp lines like what can be achieved with a straightedge in traditional, then I have to double down on my suggestion of Clip Studio. Do it. They give you total freedom when it comes to setting up guides, with crazy amounts of options, guides per layer that you can draw a straightedge anyway. The brush engine is unbeatable in my view and has the brush stability options built in and customizeable if you really really desire that clean feeling when sketching/inking.