Vaaish

I think I'm missing something here or at least this there has to be some confusion of terms going on. For context, I've used Illustrator for over 15 years and in the last year I've been poking at using Designer since I'm tired of the subscription model pricing for CC. Just double checking today, I find very little difference between Designer and Illustrator when it comes to the function of art boards though there is a good bit of difference in how I access things. Designer's artboards drag contained objects with them when rearranged just like Illustrator. Both programs can print or export artboards with printers marks, both can create ad hoc artboards. Sure Illustrator uses a panel to manage them while designer places them in the layers panel, but neither option seems significantly better. I can't speak to the database functions as I've never needed them, but I really can't say I notice much of a difference between the apps when dealing with artboards outside of Illustrator having a properties panel and Designer treating them more like a shape once placed.

The blue on the bottom one is out of gamut for CMYK printing. If you're doc is set to CMYK it'll show up like the top one regardless of whether it's in Publisher or InDesign. I pulled your bottom image into InDesign with the doc set to CMYK. If you want to test this, open the image in Photo and then change the color space to cmyk, it'll switch to look like the top one.

This is the first time in 10 years doing this I've had a request like this one. Usually if an EPS is requested you send the eps and that's that. Just straight up exporting an EPS will result in what you've found, any rasterized bits being embedded in the file. Further, you can't just export and relink them... at least in CS6. They are in some kind of weird state and of course you can't open the EPS in Affinity to attempt exporting them because you'll run into the same issue when you export.

I recently finished a project for a client to test Designer in a production environment. This mostly went quite well until I got a very odd request from the printer. They asked that the files be delivered as AI or EPS with all images linked and provided as separate files. This set off a rather frustrating day of trying to find a way to get the files to the printer as specified. I did get it "working" but it was a very messy process: Export from Designer as PDF Open PDF in Illustrator Manually move all template elements to a new layer Copy out any rasterized elements to Photoshop Save these as tiffs relink the files save final eps I've been trying to figure out a simpler way to do this with just affinity products and I'm a bit stuck. The problem lies with the use of gradients on the strokes. When exported as an EPS from Designer, these strokes are expanded and the gradient is turned into an image fill. This makes it impractical to accommodate the printers needs. Exporting as a PDF still expands the strokes, but at least the gradients come in as unknown vector data. Does anyone know a way I can get Affinity to export the EPS with all elements that it rasterizes as linked? I've attached the file for anyone if they want to give it a go. TuckBox_Final.afdesign

Ok, thanks for checking on that.

@Sean P Here you go Jokers-2.afdesign

I'd disagree unless the piece is finished art. I can expand the stroke if I have to too, but since this piece is still in production, it gives you less flexibility and fine control of the gaps especially for on the fly adjustments.... and none of that negates that there appears to be a bug in the PDF export of them, hence my original post.

It looks wrong on Chrome too, like it's splitting the stroke but it's close together. The setting I have in Designer for those are a single dashed line with 60, 3, 1, 0 phase -6 which is the same as the colored one that shows up correctly.

For clarification, it's the bit circled in red here that's different. The shot in Designer shows these to be identical, but the PDF attached above displays and prints the dash terminus on the back version much shorter than it should.

I have two duplicated pages with identical stroke settings and geometry for the long rays around the balloon that display identically in Designer. The problem occurs when I export a PDF and the dash at the end of the rays on the all black version are shorter than the color version. The screenshot shows how it looks in Designer and the PDF shows what happens when I export it. Jokers_RD01a.pdf

I didn't realize applying multiple masters was possible. It's really hidden away there. It still seems a really really odd way. Totally alien to the InDesign workflow of one master per page but allowing masters to be based on other versions. That does create some nice options for masters and COULD be a functional alternative to nested ones, but the interface for this needs a major overhaul. Why not allow us to select multiple masters initially instead of one at a time? Why not let us select multiple masters in the master page studio and drop them on at one time? anyway... I digress a bit here. Regardless of multiple masters, there still needs to be a way to identify them visually on each page. This could be as simple as adding an extra line under the page name that says which masters are on there. Maybe it we could set master page colors and have a swatch for each master applied next to the page. This is critical information to know at a glance for complex documents.

@Jobalou The terminology affinity is using seems to be different but the effect is the same as the forced line break you're looking for. Maybe the menu option could get updated to clarify it's a forced line break?

The new beta adds in linked values for the bleed and margin settings and bleed preview which is very nice but we need to have bleed settings on the new doc screen too. I'm still really not sure what master pages are good for here either. Other than very basic use setting design elements and header/footer stuff they seem really awkward. I'd love to hear what the dev's goals are for these.

Has anyone found nested styles in the beta? If not, these would be great to have. Very useful.

@walt.farrell Sorry, yes the picture frame tool. I was going off memory and defaulted to Image Frame. Edited