lepr

No.

.

In this post, I am sharing some tips and tricks to improve your workflow. I hope it will be helpful to you.
Here is the   LINK

.

Aah, i see the point.

I’ve been a Mac user since 1993, and I remember some applications having this exploded layout and still do, but frankly none of the programs I’ve used were like this.  Adobe had this mode as an option, but always alllowed to have a background.  That would have driven me crazy if I had to work with programs while looking at my desktop and folders, windows, etc in the background.

I can see that this topic has been litigated to death already, but I was hoping to add my perspective.
I've just picked up Affinity Designer because it's a great Illustrator replacement for my work use cases—namely, finishing scientific plots and building posters and graphics. But I've also started getting into  fantasy map making with my Surface, and I'd love to be able to draw coastlines in Affinity Designer Unfortunately, the smoothing on the vector pencil tool makes it very difficult to draw coastlines that look believable; they just smooth out way too much. The raster paintbrush is much better, but I'd love to be able to retain the vertices. I could zoom in to do detail work, but it wouldn't be the same; it's much slower and requires a much more deliberate process (I prefer to just let my hand wander a bit after roughing out the continents).
I love Affinity either way, but the option to turn the smoothing down further (closer to what Inkscape and Illustrator allow) would be very appreciated!

Oval will have to explain what exactly he envisions. I hope he's just reinforcing the need to specify a Path End's position relative to the path's endpoint (e.g., whether an arrowhead's point is on the endpoint, or beyond the endpoint).
But if otherwise, as it sounds to me, both of the above situations (and countless more) would be addressed by what I have been trying to describe as tight integration between what Illustrator and other programs treat as too-isolated features: path Strokes, Fills, Ends; and Symbols.
Imagine an interface something like this:
Any path has three intuitive graphic attributes: Stroke, Fill, and Ends. (It's time to abandon many of the ambiguous, strained pre-computer metaphors like "Brush" or "Pen," not to mention increasingly outdated esoteric terms like "Dodge" and "Burn.")
A Stroke is either "Art" or "Line." An Art Stroke has options for: Scale: ("Fixed" or "Per Stroke Weight") "Stretched" or "Repeated." A Repeated Art Stroke has options for: Count: (Value) Spacing: ("Auto" or "Specific") Bend With Path: (Boolean) Offset (Distance, Random [Boolean] ) The content of an Art Stroke can be a stored Symbol, just as the content of a Path End can be a stored Symbol. So there is no need to confusingly position something specifically called a Path End midway along the path. That can be done with a Repeated Art Stroke, with any Count, Spacing, Offset, etc., desired.
Or something like that. The devil, of course, is in the details, so I'm not claiming the above is perfect. Some of the options, for example, would be inter-dependent. But the concept is sound, and would be more concise, intuitive, and versatile, while less scattered and confused than most existing treatments. For example, it effectively unifies functionality of Illustrators separate "Art Brushes" and "Pattern Brushes."
All three path attributes (Stroke, Fill, Ends) should support application of multiple instances.
JET
 
 

.
 

.
 

.

.

Agree wholeheartedly!
This is yet another example of conventional-wisdom being based on nothing more than that the mediocrity of Adobe apps currently dominate the market. For many years prior to Illustrator ever gaining such things as threaded textframes, users of its historic nemesis, FreeHand, enjoyed and took for granted such things as auto-fitting text frames, multiple pages, robust find & replace, user-defined ruler scales--and many other whole-document advantages including in-line graphics.
Why? Because for the vast majority of freelance illustrator-designers, or those working at marketing firms or in corporate in-house advertising departments, the vast majority of a year's projects are not text-heavy "bookish" documents with long-threaded stories (often themselves externally linked), highly-repetitive same-size page layouts (master pages), requiring footnotes, indexes, and TOCs, etc., etc.
No, the majority of whole-document projects are graphics-intensive layouts for single-sheet, front-back, or low page-count saddle-stitched brochures, mailers, placement ads, trade show posters,  packaging designs, labels, identity packages, and, of course, let's not forget Illustrations (everything from free-wheeling artsy to info-graphics, to technical). Such non-repetitive and graphics-intensive documents are actually more conveniently and efficiently built in an illustration program where most, if not all, of the graphic elements are native to the program, rather than externally linked as mere spot graphics. And such documents need inline graphics just as frequently, if not more so.
Inline graphics are used for charts, tables, bullets, icons in instructional text, callouts, labels, dimensions, workflow diagrams...
The capability is not just appropriate for conventional-wisdom page-layout apps. I know for certain I would use it more frequently, and in more varied ways, in drawing programs. It's just one of many features that are still absurdly absent from Adobe Illustrator. Like dimension tools, user-defined drawing scales, connector lines, auto-fitting text frames, live shape primitives...
Adhering to current conventional-wisdom doesn't necessarily make something right.
Or smart.
Just ordinary.
JET

.

Please implement a full-screen display for a single image without scroll bars or convoluted commands. Right now I have to hit TAB key, then Command-Control-F and I still have to change the background color (Command-comma) in order to view the image by itself. In Photoshop CS6 all it takes is hitting the F-key twice for a full-screen view. It seems silly but the option to view the image ALONE is very important to many users. Please implement it. Thank you.

I would have thought this had been covered, but it's a feature I'm keen on seeing, so I'll risk suggesting it again.
The Dash Line Style in Stroke is flexible but struggles to give a neat finish on shapes. For example:

AD can only produce Image A, but other leading software can intelligently convert it (on the fly actually) to Image B.

.

.

I dont want it to be clone, that is why i bought it - but NEW WAY not has to be LONGER way or LESS HANDY way - it has not to be
counterproductive. The disability easy copy in this scenario - i can't accept this feature implementation as NEW WAY - as it is not ergonomical and non logical. It is not mean - that i dont like the product - but want the improvements.

.

.

.

.

Of course it does not affect neither the workflow or the quality. But the purpose of compression is to save space, not to increase it. 
For 16bits images LZW compression is not only useless but it produces files that are larger than uncompressed ones. And that's the point.
Having the choice to use it or not is a key feature, and I guess, not so difficult to implement.
A better choice would be to offer a ZIP compression with several degrees of compression (the best method to lossless compress 16bits files), but it is probably a more difficult feature to add.
Regarding the fact that it affects a few people, since it is not clearly displayed in Affinity Photo, the only way to see that a LZW compression is actually applied to all the files saved in TIFF, is to check the properties of the files. Not many do that, indeed. It took myself months to notice it. Not a reason to consider that it's not important. 
And, as a reminder, Affinity Photo is, to my knowledge, the only software not to have the choice of TIFF compression. 
Fx

.