KenzDen

Thanks, @Pšenda, but it wasn't necessary after @walt.farrell provided the answer in his last post here. Much success to you both!

So cool! Thanks, @walt.farrell Works like a charm!

Can't seem to give the presets a name, and only one of two that I created show up in the "New" dialog box. No worries, I guess I'll have to just play with it some more. Thanks, all!

Thanks, I'll try that!

Thank you, @Pšenda and @walt.farrell. While what you have suggested works for individual documents, I was hoping to change Photo's defaults so that EVERY document is automatically measured in inches or inches decimal. In Photoshop, which I hope to replace with Photo, I can do this in the preferences if there is no document open. Just set the Rulers to "inches" and all documents opened automatically default to inches. In Affinity Photo, there is no "rulers" preference, and you can't invoke the rulers without an open document—hence no universal setting. That is what I am hoping someone can help me with. Thanks again, Ken

Is there a way to change the default measurements in A.Photo to inches from pixels? Inches Decimal would be even better! Thanks, Ken

Here is a feature request that I posted to Adobe's Acrobat forum, and I believe it validates many of the requests here. I have purchased all three of Affinity's main apps, but still have to use Acrobat for fillable forms. As you will read, it leaves a LOT to be desired. If this functionality could be included in Publisher, I'd pay for an upgrade! Remember that the below is referring to Acrobat DC: " Precise placement of objects in Prepare Form and Edit Form I would like to see a "transform" capability similar to InDesign, with a panel or set of boxes in which the actual pixel X & Y coordinates, as well as the dimensions of an object, can be precisely set. Currently, the resolution on this type of placement appears to be set at 2 points, and I would like to be able to fine-tune that to pixels or 10,000ths of an inch as I can in InDesign. That's the basic idea, but read on for rationale. I work mainly in InDesign to create pdf forms that I then take into Acrobat Pro to make "fillable" (Prepare Form). Often, after I have submitted a form for approval of my superiors, they come up with edits they would like to see. Many times, these edits are additions that need to be inserted precisely into the form to prevent having to recreate the form and then go through the process of making the form fillable again. Frequently, I create a text box or button, only to find I cannot move it to precisely the location required to avoid overlapping text or an object already extant in the form, i.e., the form already is "crowded," but the ability to precisely locate the new object would be acceptable in the eyes of my employer—crowded or not. This also comes up when I need to align a newly created line that spans the page as an "underline" for two or more text boxes. In this instance, I need the line to extend beyond the text boxes as a place to indicate a fillable text field, so the underline function of the font will not suffice. The text boxes and the line, itself, will only get too close to, or else too far apart from, each other. There are other instances where this would be a wonderful feature to have, but basically, I'm spoiled to the fine-tuning that InDesign allows, and would appreciate that one feature be incorporated into Acrobat Pro. Thanks for reading, and if you're a precision designer like me, please vote for this feature! Ken "Precise placement of objects in Prepare Form and Edit Form – Share your feedback on Acrobat DC.webloc

I have used IDUtil for a few months now, and would say not its quite useless, but certainly not all it's purported to be (or maybe I just don't know how to use it to full advantage). I mainly have used it to preview old ID files. Just be sure you have "always save preview images" enabled in ID, and set to save more than one or two preview pages. It IS, you know, a free app; so I suppose we shouldn't expect too much. I wonder if it's not just designed to drive people to his Web page and commercial apps. Not that that's wrong, but perhaps could be termed "disingenuous." Of course, I'm not an app developer dependent upon people paying for them, so one might say I'm biased.

Okay, thanks. I've known *about* layers for a long time, but since most of my work has involved only "flat" pages and one language, Master Pages have done what I needed so far, and it didn't seem time-efficient to use layers. I am, however, soon to be working on files that I have created but that will then be translated into other languages, so layers could really come in handy. I appreciate the information.

Forgive my ignorance, but if you don't ask … . In what kind of document is this practice necessary or useful? I can see that in the above case of two different languages it could be a definite boon, but other than that, why have your elements on different layers?

Excuse me, I know I'm a newbie, here, but … In spite of the declarations of not getting into a spitting war of WinDozers vs. MacAholics, that seems to be what this thread has developed into. Can we please move back to discussing the development of Publisher (and other Affinity products) as they relate to real-world usage and start a different thread for Mac v. Wild, 64-bit v. 32-bit, and company politics? I, for one, will greatly appreciate it. Thanks to MEB for the actual Publisher updates on p. 12!

I'm DISmayed at the number of DISSes here for a beta app. Patience, people; patience. Indd and idml import capabilities are important to me, too, just for the record, but I wasn't surprised to find out they are not yet included in the app. Thanks to all at Affinity for your hard work. I'm certainly not writing you off, yet.

Thanks for the tip, Mike!

I learned of Publisher the same day that I signed up for this forum, so I have not been waiting like so many of you. I meant no disrespect or to add negativity to the conversation. I had never considered that there might be an alternative to InDesign—anywhere—so was VERY excited to learn of the possibility. That excitement caused me to want more info and for the program (am I dating myself by calling it that?!) to be ready, like, yesterday. Having said that, I would like to just thank MikeP and all at Affinity for their hard work, and will bow out now and let them do their job. I will be unfollowing this thread; not because I am not interested, but because my phone blew up this morning with over 35 e-mails of new posts. Can't allow myself to be distracted like that. I will check back regularly, though, so may the Affinity developers keep on keepin' on! [Oh, just found out that I can get a weekly update (among other options) instead of an e-mail for each post. I'll be using that option instead of no longer following the thread. Kewl!]

Count me in for the "all of us" segment! The sooner I have something I can test to see if I can get off the MonopAdobeoly merry-go-round, the better—even if it's not ready for prime time. "Promise me anything, but give me chocolate!"

Understood, but is there ANY update as to when to expect the beta, other than "soon" or "this summer, sometime"? (I guess I'm a little more impatient than I thought.)

I'm not indignant, angry, or impatient (well, a little impatient, maybe …)—I'm just REALLY excited, and hoping Publisher comes out in ANY version before August 4th, 2018. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why? {Hint: In the immortal words sung by Ritchie Havens, "Freedom, FREEDOM"!} I may have to emulate another poster from pages back (sorry, don't remember your name) who dug out his old, standalone CS6 ID until it does. Only problem is I have about a bagillion ID18 files I'd have to export as idml before I could cancel; and of course, I'll have to go ahead and download/purchase Design and Photo, too. Anyway, I really appreciate Serif and the development team (assuming Matt_P has some kind of help and isn't having to do it all himself) for giving us what appears to be a viable alternative to MonopAdobeoly.