Wosven

Thank you both for replying SFurniss and Wosven 🙂

@Wosven
I forgot to add that i also used texture from The Dirk Wüstenhagen Fine Art Texture Collection for the map background - which are a bonus to Affinity Photo 1.6

How is this
 

Interactive development plan on the flats developer's website. The work included minimalist design - drawing in Affinity Designer, export to SVG and integration with the CMS system. 

And they are just wasting storage space on your drive. To get rid of them, first quit AP & then navigate to the Photo user subfolder & drag the whole vector_brushes.propcol file to the trash. When you restart AP, it will create a new vector_brushes.propcol file that should be only a few hundred bytes.
It has been mentioned before but AP should not permit importing vector brushes!

@pgraficzny
Thoses maps and drawing are really nice! A little bit simpler background would give more focus on the graphics, but that's my opinion.

@pgraficzny
Thoses maps and drawing are really nice! A little bit simpler background would give more focus on the graphics, but that's my opinion.

Illustrated maps for village promotion and tourist places. Created in Affinity Designer using vector technique combined with bitmap using Concept Master Vol.1: Nature Brush Pack brushes and those created by myself. So far, for several maps, I have drawn about 200 objects with varying degrees of accuracy.

It's part of the problem...
AD and AP need also a Fonts Manager. In your document with 2 lines of text, it's easy to find the missing one, but if you don't have APub, it's too much work to select each text object to check if the font is missing.
 
Now, about the Fonts Manager itself in APub...
(using this document)
It's able to tell you there are missing fonts easily:

It's able to detect the missing font and its variants: regular, italic, bold. So far, so good...
 
I replace "visually" the missing font:

 
 
Now, trying to use the only option for replacing the fonts: the search & replace panel, after localizing the bold missing font.

The missing font is listed 3 times, without anymore informations!
You can select each one of them, the result will be the same:


 
 
The UI can be improved, and it would be nice to have the missing fonts of imported documents* listed also in the preflight panel.

It's part of the problem...
AD and AP need also a Fonts Manager. In your document with 2 lines of text, it's easy to find the missing one, but if you don't have APub, it's too much work to select each text object to check if the font is missing.
 
Now, about the Fonts Manager itself in APub...
(using this document)
It's able to tell you there are missing fonts easily:

It's able to detect the missing font and its variants: regular, italic, bold. So far, so good...
 
I replace "visually" the missing font:

 
 
Now, trying to use the only option for replacing the fonts: the search & replace panel, after localizing the bold missing font.

The missing font is listed 3 times, without anymore informations!
You can select each one of them, the result will be the same:


 
 
The UI can be improved, and it would be nice to have the missing fonts of imported documents* listed also in the preflight panel.

Tree Toolkit 04
Six tree samples from new toolit
This is the largest toolkit attempted so far
6 Vector Trees with vector assemblage and outines
6 Raster Painting Forms (seen in Untamed: Forests)
Variations
Shapes and Textures
Tree Toolkit 04 01-03

Tree Toolkit 04 04-06

Tree Toolkit 04 Sample Variations

To me the entire post sounded weird, influenced by a combination of various aspects:
• It seemed to argue against the OP's topic (an obviously missing UI option) with your personal preference of not missing it because of your habit of setting opacity visually. With other words, it felt to me like answering the question "How can I print?" with the hint "I prefer to send emails".
• It seemed to ignore a general importance of numerical input. If you set opacity visually, do you do it with all colors values? (note opacity is 1 attitude of colour definition). So, if colours shall get set visually, why not all items in Affinity documents? Imagine various sizes like page/document, margin, font, leading, stroke widths etc. Of course, it may be even possible to set everything visually only and I suppose some users try to avoid numerical input in general. If the visual-only input method would become the default it could make things easier for the developers at least. – But is the idea worth to become kind of a recommendation?
• It seemed to not notice the special role Serif donated to the numerical input in particular for opacity: With a layer selected then using the number keys on your keyboard directly sets this layers opacity, in almost every tool, even Zoom Tool.
• I was surprised / confused by you saying this, since I experienced you in the forum as user of a rather rational, less emotional design process.

IF I need different text frames with a certain opacity percent applied to each background colour, it's the way to do it.
If I ask someone, or want to decrease 5% opacity, I want it to be possible. If I want to set different objects at the same opacity, I want to be able to do it, in a month or six, simply using the same value. If I want 10 objects ranging from 0 to 10% opacity, etc.
Of course we can use tricks, there's always be useful tricks to use due to a lack of feature... but please, not for simple actions like those.
 
And I really don't understand this inquisition.
Especially for things that other already mentioned, meaning that several of us need what isn't too complicated to add (at least in this case).
The apps lack value inputs for some colour panels, degre value for gradient position, percentage value for the amount of resizing done when pasting an object or a style, etc. And those input are sometime available in other panels or effects!
Perhaps it sound strange to you that we want complete control and the ability to modify perfectly some values, and not only "à la louche"... but it's how some of us work.  And each time I dismissed a warning about such missing options, in the end, it came back to bite me, because I needed the option later, and it was too late to redo the whole work in another app or a waste of time.
And it's not because it's impossible, the value exists, it's just not displayed in a numerical input.

I wanted to create some illustrations for others to colour, which apparently is a thing, so thought I'd start with a floral mandala but I need more practice!
 

IF I need different text frames with a certain opacity percent applied to each background colour, it's the way to do it.
If I ask someone, or want to decrease 5% opacity, I want it to be possible. If I want to set different objects at the same opacity, I want to be able to do it, in a month or six, simply using the same value. If I want 10 objects ranging from 0 to 10% opacity, etc.
Of course we can use tricks, there's always be useful tricks to use due to a lack of feature... but please, not for simple actions like those.
 
And I really don't understand this inquisition.
Especially for things that other already mentioned, meaning that several of us need what isn't too complicated to add (at least in this case).
The apps lack value inputs for some colour panels, degre value for gradient position, percentage value for the amount of resizing done when pasting an object or a style, etc. And those input are sometime available in other panels or effects!
Perhaps it sound strange to you that we want complete control and the ability to modify perfectly some values, and not only "à la louche"... but it's how some of us work.  And each time I dismissed a warning about such missing options, in the end, it came back to bite me, because I needed the option later, and it was too late to redo the whole work in another app or a waste of time.
And it's not because it's impossible, the value exists, it's just not displayed in a numerical input.

Your comment sounds a bit weird. If it is a matter of efficient workflow and you only need this fill opacity for a second object (or "a few"), then it may feel cumbersome to create a palette swatch first.
Of course, you can easily get around this by not using a fill colour for the text frame at all, but instead setting a separate shape object and its layer opacity. – So the question is not whether an improved user interface would hurt, but rather why a user interface would hurt first + thus cause a discussion.
The Affinity UI is even more weird: If you created a global swatch with reduced opacity then there is no UI to edit its opacity afterwards – which can require the creation of a new swatch instead, making the "global" property useless this way.

 

Consistency? The need to use same opacity value on different elements of the same or different colours without cluttering the swatches panel?
 
This lack of consistency in the different colour panels, and the lack of numerical value visible and modifiable for opacity exist for long:
 

It was already mentioned here:
 

I discovered that Color panel and drop down Color panel aren't really the same. There are features and functionality disparities.
The most prominent is the Opacity slider. Please improve the the drop down Color panel and add an option to see/add numeral values to the opacity. When you adjust the opacity with drop down Color panel there is no way to know the opacity value. Which is terrible UX decision.

The other thing is the drop down menu(1) for the opacity in the color panel. What is it for? Why it wasn't implement simply like a filed(2)? It seems very redundant when there is a slider to adjust the opacity and the option to add a precise number manually.

Apart from the lack of numerical UI for the opacity of the text frame's fill colour: if a palette swatch is created first as a workaround, this can be visually difficult to see because its swatch does not show the transparency grid (as with "recent") but gets placed on the UI background colour - which is really a strange decision "by design".

This works. It's counterintuitive, since the edit color dialog for palette color does not offer a transparency value. The reason for an exact numeric value is repeatability. I think Affinity should improve this.

I have done digital paintings in photoshop for longer than I like to admit.  I got this program to be able to do vectors, but I may now be able to ditch the obnoxious photoshop subscription.  I am going to try the photo program that Affinity has to see if I like it, too, but I was quite happy with painting in Designer.  This is not as realistic looking as my normal digital art, but it was fun and only took an hour or so.  I can see that when I don't feel pressed for time before the trial runs out I could really go crazy with it and get more detailed than I did today.  

Before Covid, I wouldn't have commented.
But with it, and seeing friends loosing their job, having hard times, etc., I'm happy to use apps from a company with ethics and trying to help offering discount on their products, or video, articles.
I'm not the last one to complain about bugs, but I wouldn't ask to modify their business model since they're not a "pigeon de l’année", and certainly know what they are doing.

Tried exporting with PDF/X-4 with the same result, but exported with PDF/X-3:2003 and it works.
Thank you!

You would have to ask them why they don't want the ICC Profile, I think.
Basically if you don't include it then most software will assume a JPG file that is in RGB format is using the standard  sRGB profile. If your file is not using that profile, and you omit the profile, then it won't display properly.
I would expect similar considerations for CMYK JPG files; without the profile the software will have to make some assumption, and it may well be wrong.