Kal

Nightmare is the word I would have used. For anyone that cares about colour separations and the artwork they hand off to printers, Affinity apps aren't fit for purpose IMO. Thankfully, I don't do too much of this work anymore, but the wasted time and frustration whenever I have to do it would probably pay for a CC subscription a few times over.

Thanks for sharing that solution Mikkel. No, unfortunately I only went looking on the forums after I lost my changes. 😕 Thankfully, I didn't lose too much, but still… these kinds of bugs are serious and Affinity should be treating this with absolute urgency. I see the original post was in May 2018, so… well, what can I say.

I just had this happen in Publisher. No changing of folder names, all saved on my internal Mac SSD. I tried a Save As and gave the file a new name. Same error message, but a file was actually created, so I relaunched Publisher. Didn't realise that the new file had a size of zero bytes, and lost my work. ☹️

Bug still exists in 2.3.1.

It would also be useful if the polygon tool had a rounded corner option. I'd use that more than the 'curve' option it has currently, which produces bloated looking shapes. Nine times out of ten we want a rounded triangle: Not a guitar pick:

Totally agree. The first thing I do with a new copy of InDesign is customise preferences, including the keyboard increments. I use 5 for kerning/tracking, and that shortcut gets a lot of use. But with Affinity, we're stuck with what their engineers thought was a good number. 🫤 Fixed that for you. 😉 It's a shame, because the shortcut really does save time when you use it over and over… and we're talking about the ability to change the value of a single variable in the code. This would not be a difficult or time consuming feature for them to add.

This is a rare case where Affinity actually makes it easier than Adobe. They have a pre-made set of shortcuts called 'Apple Defaults'. (Go to Preferences > Shortcuts and you'll find two buttons next to each other, 'Apple Defaults' and 'Serif Defaults' (which is more like Adobe). Unfortunately, they messed up the very shortcut this thread is about. When you switch to Apple Defaults, you'll find that Command-Option-<- actually increases kerning (or tracking if you have text selected) and Command-Option--> decreases it. 🤦‍♂️ But that's not too hard to fix by overriding the Text > Spacing shortcuts.

Ditto. I went looking for this again today only to notice that I've been here before. I don't think I'll ever quite get Affinity's logic behind their UI. Is it just because we're old dogs and these are new tricks? I don't think so. I can't think of a situation where I would want to lock transparency for one painting tool and not another. And I can't think of any real-world situation where modifying a painting tool would create this sort of magic. Locking transparency is more akin to applying a mask, and that's something which should happen in the layers panel.

A bug is really anything that doesn't work as intended. In my original post I acknowledged that 'You could argue about the expected behaviour at point 3'. So it really depends on what the Affinity devs think should happen. I've made it known what my expected behaviour is, but they may feel differently of course. Exactly.

Yeah, strictly speaking you’re right and I do realise that, but in my example the object is selected, which sets the current fill colour to match the object colour. (I just noticed that I could have been clearer in my original post and explicitly stated that the object is still selected in step 2. I’ve edited to make it clearer.)

Right. So really, there are two issues here… Swatch highlighting generally, and the way a selected object doesn't adopt the global colour created from it. Swatch management is probably the single most frustrating thing for me with Affinity.

In Designer: Create a simple object with a coloured fill. With the object still selected, press the 'Add current color to palette as a global color' in the Swatches panel. Notice that the new global colour isn't highlighted in the Swatches panel. However, if you click between different objects and back to the first object, the new global colour is highlighted—the UIs way of telling you that the object has that colour applied. Deselect the object and edit the global colour. Notice that the colour of the new object has not been updated. It seems that it never did have the global colour applied to it. You could argue about the expected behaviour at point 3. Should it automatically apply the new global colour to the selected object? I think it should. But even if the devs think otherwise, if selecting the object highlights the global colour in the palette, that should be a reliable indication that it has the global colour applied. It looks like this bug has been around for a VERY long time, as I just reproduced the behaviour in V1.

Pauls, this comment was over two years ago, and the bug is still there in V2.1. Bump?

I don't need competing apps to match Adobe feature-for-feature. CS6 would still get the job done 99% of the time. I just wish Affinity would get the fundamentals right. Version 2 is still missing basic features like support for 1-bit graphics, and aspects of their UI (especially colour swatch management) are terrible. The problem isn't that Affinity needs 10–15 years to catch up. The problem appears to be that they just don't understand why these things are a problem. If they did, I think we'd have seen them addressed in version 2. So I'm not terribly optimistic that Affinity will ever threaten Adobe's hold over the industry. I hope they prove me wrong.

For a monthly subscription, I suppose this would be okay. But again, the better model (IMHO) is the one where you make an initial payment for the app and then get 12 months of free updates, with an option to renew each year if you want to keep receiving updates. If you don't renew, you still have full access to the version of the software you paid for. This provides a true incentive for the developer to keep improving their product, without holding users to ransom. That was exactly my point when I said, 'the only reason they had the gall to do it, is because they had something off a monopoly when it comes to comprehensive design suites'. If you're a struggling small business or a one-person show (lots of those out there) it just might be a big deal—maybe not all the time, but if you hit hard times, as many people are now, with rising interest rates and inflation, you can't ever press pause on that subscription, even for a few months, without losing your very livelihood. Adobe may not send thugs around to your house asking for protection money, but they are using their position of power to force users into regular payments with the threat of loss if they don't. Tell me I'm totally sensationalising this now, and that you can't see any similarities. 🙂