CLC

You got my heartfelt 'like' for the AI comment  (would have gotten the purple one if I weren't slightly disagreeing in other points). The 2.0 was a bump in the road, yep... But I reacted by helping with user workarounds (like there was no tomorrow, lol), as many other did (Walt, Alfred, etc, etc) while the devs progressively went fixing everything. Any software is at that state in the "machines room" while doing it... and if released too soon, that is what you see. Having worked at regular software companies and game studios quite intensively, I knew I was just looking at it "from inside", not something going particularly wrong, but maybe (I could be wrong) released too soon. Just that. You wouldn't imagine how some games are plagued with bugs while development. Or even office related software. But with experience being a beta tester for many apps, I did not mind it, found the workflows and tricks for my own usage and shared all what I could here, researched issues of others, specially for those who found A or B a show stopper for their needs. Helped as much as I could. But I can understand the pain.

To me, even with the bumps in the road, and this "surprise", these apps are way, way worth it, compared to what it's out there, and also the style of doing things of this team (team which, for all I understood, is gonna be kept to continue the development). It is an unique combination (even rare), and it is very much worth it preserving it. And I foresee it will stay so, and better (more resources, by far). About... progress... I guess varies from field to field... 2.x , I don't know the technicalities or reasons why, but the brush engine is more fluid, in Affinity Photo.  1.x very latest and perfected/patched version is almost as fluid, and super functional, but, in my machine (and it could be a single case, yet I doubt it, for how I configure things... it's also this way in my laptop) the brush flows more fluid, better response in every 2.x version compared to the best 1.x. I'm talking painting fluidly with large brushes, large canvases (which is taxing in ANY app, I've done deep research), Adobe RGB color space files, working with 16bits/channel, and using brushes that mimic traditional media. This was not so in the past versions of 1.x (again, a lot was improved in the latest 1.x). In the old past there was even brush lag.  Also, many UI improvements related to brushes library and settings, a gazillion bugs fixed in all the apps, in the following 2.x versions (2.4 runs really smooth here). I do more than painting, and I have not found a "show stopper" in my workflows, but like with any software and brand, I'm sure there always are.
Adobe being on its own (speaking now about the "going back to Adobe" that you mention) is a HUGE price to pay and a situation we (imo) must not admit (except those willing to work as part of staffs, learning and heading for a specific job profile, or only having freelance market clients that require Adobe apps pipelines, formats, integration. Adobe is the industry (many industries) leader). Meaning, if Adobe is again "left alone", to eat "all the pie", that's really bad news (renting prices augmenting, random decisions way easier for them, no need to offer better deals or competing apps for certain niches,  etc, etc). We need competition (it's actually great for Adobe users), even with  these "bumps". I'm fluent with open source apps, and for low-mid range that should be enough, but a lot of people keeps finding difficult certain UIs . In reality, a lot of that is the bad image from the past, more than recent versions' reality, but difficult to fight against that concept. 

So, Affinity is a need, with Canva or with whatever behind it. Plus, I believe people are seeing things way to much one-sided. It's not like I don't see the bad sides, but to me, only AI is the real bad one, but artists are alone in this (people are getting nervous with AI in other profiles, like coders, but imo they shouldn't... yet) and it's an unavoidable tech (although there's over hype, too, for increasing VC funding), which as you say, can only be kept under control by regulation (I'm hopeful that it will).

But the other reasons, which most people are worried about (subscriptions, continued development, etc), I am seeing more and more that these should be less of a concern, some aspects are not given the same weight as the negative possibilities, is what I am finding.

BTW, not trying to demonize Adobe. I love its apps. Photoshop for me is more natural than my tooth brush, but a monopolistic situation has been detrimental for all of us (including Adobe users), IMO, as tends to be with consumers, we need competition. This is not the easy path, the easy one is Adobe, one must have it clear (you can't have it all...). But I am not that convinced that (for a freelancer/independent business, again, not for a career in the industry) sticking with the "giant" is necessarily the safest route... as indeed, I have friends that saw how sticking with Adobe "no matter what", ended having to close an entire small business line with Muse (specially as many of those chose that business line because they can't do web code, any programming at all, but their service was making websites with Muse) , Fireworks, Freehand, etc, all similar stories. Microsoft has done that a lot, too (acquired many software studios). These people (The A-team  ) have a different style and different model than Adobe or MS. Not only Affinity team (I'm not saying "Serif", you know what I mean), as IMO, while with a very different motto,  it is also in Canva's main interest to push up Affinity apps, not the opposite, from what we are seeing that seems to be the big market motivations. I can easily see that they want to grab a bigger chunk of Adobe's market, but "just that". I think they are smart enough to know that in higher tiers Adobe will keep undisputed (but the casuals (and now aiming for a middle ground too, with Affinity) are a huge market... mainstream always is very big). Even that very sole reason is reassuring, which, BTW, is very materialistic itself (for the realism lovers   ), just markets stuff, and quite an argument to realize that the outcome of a more powerful Affinity suite is more than probable, beyond of course being ensured its permanence.
 

There's so much more than you mention that's missing in Affinity. I haven't been conservative. I've just been unable to use anything but Designer. Like, at all.
The lack of valid accessibility in PDFs alone is a total deal-breaker. Here we're talking about legislation and beyond legislation, basic education and respect for everyone. And the accessibility within Affinity itself is also terrible.
No, there's a long way up to Adobe. It's not just the small against the big story. There are many who have to choose something else due to professional requirements, and others not being able to identify or understand these requirements doesn't change reality.
We're talking about a deficient ecosystem from company to product to output. Not just individual flaws and lacks. There are simply people out there with different needs and expectations for professional software than what people here understand and can comprehend, and until this is recognized and respected by the members of the forum, the full truth about why Affinity didn't "bizarrely" take large market shares won't be known, and so the story about conservatism and Adobe can continue. It's as if many here including Serif don't grasp the world a few steps away from their own desk.
Overall, the manic focus on Adobe annoys me. There are other big companies, and their products also exude professionalism whether you like them or not. They have delivered and gained insight into the customers' needs and workflows due to real contact with them.
Conservatism is also about clinging to the same narrative of victimhood.

Here is an archived version of the article before it got paywalled https://archive.is/tpn6p so everyone can read it.
  
Exactly what's on my mind. Also it's exactly the reason why artists are mad and starting to ai-poison their artworks. EU just started talking about control of ai and its usage, let's hope they will take us in account.
Hollywood lobby got their way around video piracy, we should want to do the same to protect us. Especially for those who use LAION-5B dataset for their commercial ai models.
Well, I personally am not fan of the takeover and worry that Affinity as we know it will cease to exist and will be turned into something different. I switched back to Adobe CC for my business needs when I saw no real progress in V2, yet I still use sometimes for some small personal projects, just because I'm sorry to let the money I've spent on it and the many add-ons burn.
We'll see if the pledge is true and Canva will help Serif to grow Affinity to a better suite.

Here is an archived version of the article before it got paywalled https://archive.is/tpn6p so everyone can read it.
  
Exactly what's on my mind. Also it's exactly the reason why artists are mad and starting to ai-poison their artworks. EU just started talking about control of ai and its usage, let's hope they will take us in account.
Hollywood lobby got their way around video piracy, we should want to do the same to protect us. Especially for those who use LAION-5B dataset for their commercial ai models.
Well, I personally am not fan of the takeover and worry that Affinity as we know it will cease to exist and will be turned into something different. I switched back to Adobe CC for my business needs when I saw no real progress in V2, yet I still use sometimes for some small personal projects, just because I'm sorry to let the money I've spent on it and the many add-ons burn.
We'll see if the pledge is true and Canva will help Serif to grow Affinity to a better suite.

Here is an archived version of the article before it got paywalled https://archive.is/tpn6p so everyone can read it.
  
Exactly what's on my mind. Also it's exactly the reason why artists are mad and starting to ai-poison their artworks. EU just started talking about control of ai and its usage, let's hope they will take us in account.
Hollywood lobby got their way around video piracy, we should want to do the same to protect us. Especially for those who use LAION-5B dataset for their commercial ai models.
Well, I personally am not fan of the takeover and worry that Affinity as we know it will cease to exist and will be turned into something different. I switched back to Adobe CC for my business needs when I saw no real progress in V2, yet I still use sometimes for some small personal projects, just because I'm sorry to let the money I've spent on it and the many add-ons burn.
We'll see if the pledge is true and Canva will help Serif to grow Affinity to a better suite.

I'm curious... One of our Australian forum members, MikeV, discards this possibility, due to Canva's HQ happening to be in Sydney, Australia, and how Australian regulators are tending to deal with this sort of thing there :

" Adobe takeover
One of the concerns raised in this thread is the potential for Adobe to buy Canva – given the mood and direction of Australian competition regulators I think this is so unlikely that it does not figure in my calculations. "   

After  what has happened with Figma (Adobe tried to acquire it recently), apparently this is not such an automatic thing to expect, these days. There are some articles about it : 
https://www.afr.com/technology/no-one-can-buy-canva-now-other-start-ups-beware-20231220-p5esr8
Edit: Ouch, sorry. It seems that article is partially behind a paywall...  I could read it completely, but it seems for some reason it only shows up full when searching some stuff in Google, not accessing it directly... (I am not familiar with that site, BTW). But one of  the key points of it is that Australian companies have it pretty hard to do such operation now, due to regulation (what MikeV described).

What I am finding more in Google goes more in the lines of several sources expecting more of a competition from Canva against Adobe, grabbing more market from Adobe in the low, to low-mid end. Obviously Adobe will keep non challenged in the very high end, not just as its apps are immensely more advanced and professional, but -almost more important- because many industries (not only the game and film industries) have their pipelines, workflows, custom solutions, trained teams, tightly tied to Adobe. But a huge pie of the market is the low end (175 millions of users in Canva is no small thing) and part of a bit higher tier.

Even more the case when our skills are less and less needed (and I can't understand why people don't realize that this is the biggest danger for artists, designers, photographers, etc, but not just from Canva, but any apps with full AI art and design generation, like MidJourney , Dall-E, etc), so, the low end users can finally do a lot of work without our services (in Canva, and similar solutions), and then, the "pie" that canva can grab is significantly bigger than what it was the potential Canva's user base before. WAY more the case if they start implementing Affinity's tech inside Canva solutions (to an extent... I don't see a lot of their user base getting super technical! It's not that profile), and also keeping the branch of Affinity's standalone suite. As in, I think it aspires to way more  than the social media graphics and fast stuff for marketing people and small business owners saving bucks on designers and artists that it was its market till now. This challenges a large chunk of Adobe's user base. And from what I am digging out there, it seems I was not the only one suspecting that Canva's thing is not to be bought, but to compete with the giant, as at this point, well, it's a giant itself and it has a lot to win.
I am not saying this to challenge your opinion. I am genuinely curious about all this matter, and I might be wrong, as I'm just barely reading about these things now, pretty ignorant in finances stuff, and English is not my first language, but seems to be there quite a bunch of articles supporting this theory and right now I am not finding anything suggesting the possibility of an Adobe--> Canva buyout. But who knows.
 

Sadly, not at all.
Thank you for mentioning this, @v_kyr, what a shame you posted this into Feedback section instead of bug section though.
Also, severity of this bug is so serious that Serif should issue an update to the whole V1 line as well...
Honorable mention: @Patrick Connor

It's fine being here. I have linked your request to the developer report, which is under consideration already.

First I wanted to place it into the bug section, but then thought Ok it's usually not an Affinity own bug but instead more a Google third-party used library (libwebp) security hole (bug) which can lead to vulnerability attacks.
Also so far didn't recherched, if the yet new released Affinity v2.2 versions do include a more recent (fixed) libwebp version here or not (?). If not they should update that one accordingly!

I wonder if MSIX sandboxing helps here or not?

A number of vulnerabilities in Google's WebP image format have recently become known that allow attackers to trigger memory errors (heap buffer overflow) in unspecified ways. This usually means that malicious code can get onto systems and attackers can completely compromise computers. – Therefore, it makes sense to update the Webp library accordingly to prevent and close this WebP gap for Affinity products.

I think you're missing the point here, @Mithferion 😉
The way AI handles overprint is object (property) based while in Affinity it's colour-based.
The object oriented system is imo way more logical, you could easily want to overprint the same colour at one place of the document, while having it knocked-out in other part.
Overprint preview is a must also, without any doubts...
Also, it's not that easy to handle colour swatches in Affinity compared to AI - you can't work with multiple colour swatches at once, and you also can't switch Spot color checkbox anymore, once you've created a Spot color swatch, you can't turn it back to CMYK (or other colour model). The only, and very counter-intuitive way is to create a new swatch, then Select > Same Colour, then change the swatch, later deleting the spot-colour swatch. What a UX I'd say...

@TedThompson Hi.
Try View > View Mode > untick Clip to Canvas.
That should do it.

New in Version 1.2:
Tracks Function – Create many types of rotational designs. Routes Selector – You have a choice of the order in which most designs are drawn. Colour Schemes – Seven new schemes. New Shapes – Spikeys, Flowers, Rectelipses (Squircles), Quaternates, and path versions of other shapes. Code Viewer – Improved viewing options. Fields – You can now determine if the shape positions are automatically recalculated. I recently published an update to Canny Vectors which is an application that allows Windows 10 users to create various vector designs that can be used in the Affinity applications – as native Affinity layers – or saved as SVG files to be used anywhere you use SVGs. I had the Affinity applications in mind when I was developing the software but you can probably use the output anywhere that can use an SVG.
It is not meant to be the greatest vector application ever, or anything like that; it’s just a small collection of simple tools which might come in useful every now and again and save you a little bit of time here and there. And it's completely free with no ads.
At the moment it has five functions:
Grids – regular orthogonal grids of shapes;
Fields – a collection of randomly placed shapes;
Panes – an area covered with randomly altered lines or shapes.
Centrics – Create ‘concentric’ shapes, and more.
Tracks - Create rotational designs.
Each function has various options with which you can vary what the software creates, so there’s lots to experiment with.
The application comes with a user guide – written using the Affinity applications – which I have attached to this post:
I’ve attached some example images and a video of each function showing just some of what you can do.
Please do not make bug reports or make feature requests for this software in these forums; I’m sure the Serif staff don’t want that extra hassle. Use the in-app functionality instead, or you can rate/review the software in the App Store.
If you want to make a feature request, please read the notes in Part 8 of the user guide before making the request (some requests/suggestions may be ignored). (You might be able to PM me via the forums as long as the discussion doesn't go on for too long.)
If you do use the software, and find some good uses for it, then it might be nice if you could show some examples here for other people to see.
You can find and install the software via this link: https://www.microsoft.com/store/apps/9P3H0SH7XK02
Or you can get it via the Microsoft Store here: ms-windows-store://pdp/?productid=9P3H0SH7XK02
Why not give it a try and see what you can create?
 
 

2022-02-27 12-25-52.mp4 2022-02-27 12-30-24.mp4 2022-02-27 12-41-04.mp4 2022-02-27 12-43-22.mp4 2022-02-27 12-47-38.mp4

I heard some talk a while back about the possibility of them being bought out down the track, and at that time I was like no fricken way, but as things currently stand I would gladly welcome such news.

Agree! I've also purchased 3 products.
Looks like the company is waiting to be acquired by bigger ones, and put all development in a complete stop.
I think that's why the roadmap was removed awhile back.

The need to set ALL batch job settings AGAIN every time the dialogue is open is very BAD.
Some form of persistence in user set settings is needed.
Especially in case of input/output folders. If for example these settings persist between sessions, the user can have one folder for input, one for output and just replace input images, run appropriate macros on them, retrieve them from the output folder and repeat and not not worry about these settings in AP.

K

@CLC Fixed and I added your additional machine. I assumed it was the 10-core CPU based on the scores.

@mykee

Macbook Pro 2019 15,4"
2,3 GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9 9880H
16 GB RAM
Radeon Pro 560x 4 GB RAM + Intel UHD 630
macOS Monterey 12.2.1
Running on battery though.

@Frozen Death Knight I didn't tag you out of the blue. You initially responded to my comments about how Vectorstyler already has all the features missing in Affinity Designer and more. You listed all these issues you supposedly had with the program, and it was obvious you were mistakenly using some other program or you had not used VS in over a year. You had a long list of criticisms and offered few positives for VS and then said you were going to sit on the sidelines until it improved. It was clear you had not gone more than 10 minutes into using VS. I called you out on your eagerness to criticize and lack of action to help out and you did not reply. I took the time to send in your comments in case they were helpful (I don't often use the windows platform so I'm not fully aware of all specifics on that side). I reminded you later when updates were made that some of them related to your comments. I'm not bothered you had criticism of VS, I was bothered that some did not seem credible and it made no sense to me that someone would use an outdated build to reference problems, and then not be willing to lift a finger to see it improved. All while defending a program that lacks consistent updates, has plenty of it's own bugs and offers a limited number of tools. Then again, you said Affinity does everything you want it to already so....

Even the accurate issues you listed lack perspective. I'd rather have a program that does not remember my screen settings perfectly but can complete every task I need done plus has more tools than any other vector program than defend Designer with a very limited set of tools and years long improvement cycles.

The frustration of many with Affinity; not giving much feedback, no hints of updates, a long list of features requested for multiple years running - you'd think more people would welcome an opportunity to help assist a vector program that is robust in features and has a developer who is engaged and open to ideas and offers improvements weekly - even if that program was going to be relegated to being a side app for those who prefer affinity designer as their primary. What I find surprising is the level of hostility people have with mentioning alternative options to fill in the many gaps where Affinity is still lacking. People defending years long glacial development, defending a lack of communication with the customer base, defending calling a program professional when it lacks so much.  I should not have to convince you to give feedback. I wanted Affinity to be my main vector program  - unfortunately I cannot do all my professional work with it yet. That's what drives me to find solutions and help improve the solutions, wherever they come from.

We're all in here on the Affinity forum because we have a mutual interest in seeing Affinity develop. There are certain things Affinity does very well; it has an ease of use, actions are smooth and efficient, it's a lot faster than bloated apps like Illustrator, I love the ease of dragging and dropping into clipping groups and making gradients. The shape tools are handy and I like the pen tool more than most other apps.  For those features and the hope of more to come, I stick around  and contribute when betas and new releases do come out. For the reality that Affinity is not moving at a pace I can work with, I involve myself in finding productive solutions and sharing them with others, especially here in the forum.

In software development, there is a concept called "technical debt" that usually leads to slower development over time.  Almost all projects build up technical debt over time.  No project ever has all the foresight of what will be needed in the future and original designs can fall short of what is needed.  At some point, if technical debt is not addressed, development continues to be slower and slower.  It is painful to address, as it usually means you have to put new development on hold to go back and do refactoring and redesign.  The benefit is that development velocity can increase afterward.
The somewhat hopeful point of view is that it sounds like Affinity did address some technical debt last year with changes they were making to improve performance.

This forum will not be sufficient for a proper in depth discussion.  I would recommend you start reading some material on TDD.
https://testdriven.io/test-driven-development/
For everyone else, what you are witnessing is exactly what happens internally within development teams when a new process is proposed.  There is resistance to change and acceptance that the new process will be beneficial.  It is more than just the technical element when improving processes.  There is the human element that is a fundamental step in convincing the organization that the process changes will be beneficial.  It is why you need an experienced advocate to lead the change.  An organization is unlikely to be able to navigate the process on their own without a lot of mistakes along the way.
 

It would be normal in proper development to be a test for every API function.  When you do this at the unit test level, it is really not necessarily that much more work.  You should have 100% test coverage.  It is irrelevant whether you are a single person or a huge corporation.  Eventually, you can't manually test anymore.  Development cycles get longer and longer because of the testing burden until it takes you forever to get out the single new feature. 
Overtime, the application becomes more complex, new changes may introduce regressions.  When you add a new change, you should test all other features that have ever been developed since the beginning.  You can't scale this manually.  So if you are doing manual testing, you will only test a small portion.  What you think might be affected.  Often you will be wrong.
You don't decide what to test with automated tests.  At least at the unit level.  You test everything.  You should 100% test coverage.  That might not be possible at the integration test level.  The problem with OS's, is it is essentially just an integration platform because you allow software to be installed that is not part of your testing and that software can be written at low level which is a different problem at a different scale.

Modern application development that follows the Agile development principles organizes development such that you can essentially ship at any time.  It is a process that throws away the long design, develop and test cycles with short iterations.  It produces higher quality deliverables by having responsive feedback with the stake holders as well as test driven development and automation allowing for continuous high quality and stability of the product.