Steve_N

Absolutely the plan for now. Am leaving the design/print pc on 1.8.5 which was my last stable version. Ah I see, nice to know I'm not an isolated case on this type of print/cutter issue. @Dazmondo77 above also expressed similar concern regarding print deficiencies. Sounds like a logical necessity I agree. 1.9 through 1.10 broke a lot more than just reliable vector print output for me. Seems to have almost completely decapitated print ability to the trotec driver on both my Win 7 / 10 Pro computers. Yes, I agree. I can certainly appreciate Serif are trying to push hard developing the platform as an entire 'wired' ecosystem. But it is really difficult for me to now maintain interoperability between Designer and Photo because they're on different versions. Having product photo edits already saved in Photo 1.9.2 is challenging because I often pull them into Designer to comp up our release product card designs then send those off for "real" product card printing. It's a logistical brain-bender now as I'm sure you can attest. I saved so many image edits in Photo 1.9.2 before I realised Designer 1.9.2 laser printing was broken. So as you initially suggested for that I have to export instead of opening natively. But now I have to be really careful that I don't forget and save a file in Photo 1.9.2 which originated from Designer 1.8.5 I guess I'll see where I end up over the next year or so.

I wish that were the case. Thanks again for trying to assist. Again, probably true. Although I don't quite understand how Serif could possibly view this as a relatively unimportant software function in 2021. Perhaps the iPad focus is clouding their perspective and they see it as no longer worth much time invested? Why bring Publisher to the table though if this were true?... It difinitely is key, although so is the design/creation aspect. And for that I have become very comfortable in the workflow benefit AD still offers us. Moving software is a harsh reality I'm desparately hoping to avoid. These things are always "damned if you do, damned if you don't" and will hurt either way. However, the number of indicators forcing me in that direction are increasing with each update. Oh dear! At this point our little biz can't afford much spare time while I get comfortable with a new design app. I have no idea which software could adequately replace AD. Illustrator is not an option (it's not just the money and it's a long story). I've checked out various potential budget replacements but I'm still unsure how workable they would be without actually using each one and committing to it. Inkscape feels like pulling teeth for me every time I attempt to design in it. Corel at $549 /yr is more than we'd like for one extra element in our overall yearly $ outlay. I really feel caught between a rock and a hard place.

No, not at all. JobControl only opens it's own native .tsf files for laser machine specific control. It's proprietary (and painfully "locked down"). Thanks for your suggestion, however it really does all need to be printed directly from AD. If it were as easy as your suggestion then I wouldn't be so worried about getting to the bottom of this JobControl print issue. In all honesty, I will seriously consider abandoning AD for all our design work before I entertain the idea of jambing in a another time-consuming third file workaround. However, don't forget that another component of this issue for me is that changes in latest AD versions are now creating additional print failures as listed in my follow up above. I know it sounds "simple", when thinking of managing printing, however let me reiterate again; it's not when dealing with trotec proprietary cut files including hundreds (sometimes thousands) of pieces on each sheet and with varying colour cuts. It's difficult and time-consuming enough for one person printing single-use/purpose cutting files for every single layout variation without being expected to "manage" printing of those origin layout files through a third itermediary app. Add to this; by necessity (that being a laser cutter requiring it's own fire hazard and ambient temperature control monitoring), the laser is in a different building from my design office where I need to "print" the actual cutting files and send over our network to the machine pc. The nature of our unique design/handmade product means I am always making many alterations to files before we settle on the perfect engrave/cut settings for that particular design. It's how we've managed to carve out an attention to detail reputation in fit/finish for our niche micro-market. And therein lies the 'elephant in the room' behind this JobControl print dilemma. It's not simply a 'slight pain', it adds exponentially to the time required through our lengthy layout-file, laser-cutting process. Particularly once I position a full sheet requiring accurate manually positioned, reverse-side "engrave flipping", then realise it all needs readjusting and rejigging before printing again. In short, working from a file, of a file, of an origin file is ridiculously prohibitive. Our laser process is simply a "means-to-the-end" for our handmade product, not the "final product" maker which is how most commercial businesses use a laser cutter/engraver. We're not the type of business who pumps out mass produced, identical-sized ID tags, or four metre wide "one-off" commercial signage. Hope this all makes sense??...

Hi MattP, I would have loved it if this was the case, however unfortunately the problem has not improved at all and only become worse. I installed 1.10 and JobControl on a separate (3rd machine of mine) so that I could test this without decapitating my primary laser cutting/graphics computer. Aside from the raster output issues, files printed from Designer 1.9 -> 1.10 / JobControl mostly do not even work at all now. When I try to print a file, various outcomes happen depending on the program's mood. 8 times out of 10 the print simply outputs nothing and doesn't create a file at all. The attempted print completely deactivates the windows print function and tells me there is no printer installed and to reboot the machine or install a printer. This was also happening with 1.9 on my main machine when I frist starting encountering later version issues. If I mess with the print dialogue setting enough I MIGHT be able to get one to print, UNTIL I use a file that was created and saved with 1.9, 1.9.2, 1.10 The print ability now seems a complete "hit or miss" affair. Before I installed 1.10 on the 3rd machine I tried printing files with 1.8.5 and they output correctly, so this is definitely an issue with designer's later versions. I should also mention that both machines which I tested later versions on are quite decently spec'ed PC's. One is still running Win 7 Pro and my main laser cutting PC is on Win 10 Pro. So, the exact same result on two completely different systems with different graphics cards/drivers. What is the solution for this?

True. After re-reading my comment I realised it was completely misrepresenting my thoughts. In my head I was thinking, in relation to this threads discussion period. Obviously my brain was in the 🚾 with lawless fingers! "The inter-webs" strikes again. 😁-😶 I share your sentiment. I often find it frustrating that management never seem to share any development roadmapping or mud-map. Although having said that, there is a part of me that can empathise why they prefer not. I know I've quietly ached and lamented after this simple AD function since beginning to use it.

Thanks for the workaround tip carl123 I really hope not. Chris, do you think it'll be planned for solving in any update release soon? Additionally, has there ever been management/dev discussion about including the Perspective live filter in Designer? It looks like it's been a hotly requested addition for 3-4 years in Designer.

Not for me. The coloured rectangles were very consistent and persistent. Mine were permanently of all colours over most of the outer (unused) canvas.

Wow, three years on and true vector perspective editing is still an 'AD back-burner' feature!.. Sorry if my quoting/response here is 'off-topic' from the OP (2018), although it's relevant considering the perspective filter is the post' original question/discussion. I experienced this yesterday and was about to post about it, then decided I was dealing with too many other business/Affinity issues regarding vectors/stroke/laser-file-printing. Then I stumbled on the last two pages of this post while searching for solutions to my other issues. I was using Designer/Win 10, and it happened after duplicating a layer copied from Photo with the Perspective filter nested, then applying an Outer Shadow FX. Once I deleted the duplicate and resorted to working only on the original layers, the randon coloured rectangles disappeared from the unused canvas area. There was no way to make the strange colours disappear in that file until the duplicated layers were deleted. I tried to replicate this again today and it doesn't seem to be happening, or the process order used to make it happen yesterday is not exact. I don't know.

Oh dear, I've realised I no longer have the ability to open our "Photo" files in AD 1.8.5 as that is version 1.9.2, and it has our businesses "release worth" of edited product shots saved in it. The "Open in Designer/Photo" is lost. I only realised this when I tried to use cross-compatibility for the only live distort -> perspective tool offered in Affinity, which is in Photo. Why, why why are there no text perspective distort tools in Designer? Argh. Please Serif, it's excellent that you had foresight to engineer great flexibility between the two/three apps, however that becomes moot if newer versions change core function, which then involuntarily forces that version matching workflow to break. I cannot revert back to 1.8.5 with Photo. Well not easily anyway. Yes, I could export to .psd then re-import, but that always leaves some previously editable content "uneditable" afterwards. It becomes a tail-chase. This program absolutely should be able to print its output reliably and within current professional conventions. It is afterall "Designer" and marketed for being used as a professional vector design tool, yes?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The reality is I have now given up considering moving past 1.8.5. Too much time wasted resetting custom interface data after every install, then test, fail, mental-breakdown, uninstall, reset! I'm VERY concerned this is going to have serious implications for our design process as we move forward with future work, and our regressive "locked-in" AD version as the ecosystem evolves. This may be true. However our only concern has been AD was at least 'workable'. It certainly wasn't flawless by any stretch! There were often bugs and time consuming workarounds, although at least workable. Again true. We've only ever needed to remain in RGB for our design process, and printing to JobControl. As eluded above, our biggest worry? Every version from this point on will make it increasingly difficult to continue using AD for design layout work and essential subsequent printing of complex JobControl cutting files. I believe it has something to do with the new "Stroke/Outline expand/Shrink As all software does, 1.8.5 will eventually reach a point where it begins to have compatibility "issues" with either our OS version or software developed with more modern code/API's. We'll then be further 'stuck'. Is there any input/thoughts on this matter from Serif dev's or those 'in-the-know' here? I really am nervous as I didn't consider the workflow using my AD/JobControl combo getting harder, but rather 'easier' as versions evolved! Seriously, this may not be the case now and we have years worth of designs embedded in the Affinity ecosystem.

Hi Team, There seems to be a problem in the way AD versions 1.9.0 through to 1.9.2 recognise and pass vector line information to our Trotec 'JobControl' print driver. The print/render will now produce a raster red line instead of a vector for files created in any version prior -> 1.8.5. If I redraw that very same line (then snap it to the existing path in 1.9.2 Beta for example) and print the file to JobControl, the line will print correctly. We have hundreds of files with complex cutting Artboards in them. As it stands we will have to recreate every red cut line from every shape and layout if versions 1.9.0+ will not print lines created in previous versions. The only way to get around this is to export every file to .eps format first. But then we lose all the group/layer stacking and colour tagging which is used for hiding and printing different combinations of large piece-count layout files. Another change in 1.9.0+ is that it does not recognise the 'Defined by driver' paper size in the AD print settings used to print to the correct laser-bed sized file. I now have to change the setting to 'custom' each time in the AD print dialogue and enter the size manually to have it set the correct 610mm x 305mm file table size. I have been printing for two and a half years into JobControl using exact RGB colour values for both red and blue vector cuts. Stroke width is not critical as long as it is sub 0.05mm, I always set ours to 0.02mm. I mention this because I have read a number of posts here on the forums which believe a critical 'hairline width' for Job Control is necessary for cut lines to be recognised and rendered. This is not so. JobControl is more concerned with the RGB value and seems to accept any stroke value under 0.05mm (0.14pt). I have tried the printing process with numerous files created in versions ->1.8.5 and all red/blue vectors seems to behave the same. I am keen to get to the bottom of this as it's a big time-consuming workaround for us for years to come if the files can't translate into future AD versions for easy, reliable laser printing. Can provide files and system info through a secure channel.

Unfortunate?, no I'm not so sure. After my experience with a Trotec laser and the company's arrogant 'Air of Superiority', I'm afraid I wouldn't be inclined to recommend getting one either. Trotec are one of those company's who make things ridiculously inaccessible in attempt to bluff the customer at making the high price tag (remember it's a prestige 'subsiduary company' business model) more palatable. It has little to do with the actual price of their machine, although they will expel great effort to convince potential customers of just that; how you won't find anything in the cosmos as premium or reliable as a Trotec Laser! Really! After 12 months of light use our Speedy 100 still needed a new $2k main drive motor. And when I say 'light use' I mean VERY light use. Considering the sales gurus claiming the commercial workout the machines are specifically designed for. Crikey, if we were using our machine to a 'commercial level' it would have failed within 2 months! And when your MTBF (average time before repairable failure) happens WAY before they insist it ever will and you're left 2 weeks without a machine during your busiest time ever, and make you jump through unnecessary time wasting problem-solving hoops! Suddenly their superiority spruik changes to "well every machine fails, why do you expect ours to be any different". And I think, well isn't that a different tone to your pre-sales lectures! They claim absolutely bulletproof support before they get your money, and "whenever you need them, they'll come running to your aid!". They also insist every single 'tinkering' with the machine must be handled by a 'qualified' tech. But let me tell you when push comes to shove and they couldn't be bothered sending a tech to your aid 3 hours drive to your biz in the country to replace a motor, all of a sudden they are completely happy to have the customer expected to change and align a new head-drive motor themselves! I could have received that level of service with a machine 1/10 that price. I guess it also now makes me a 'Qualified Tech'! Trotec actively lock customers out of 'tweaking and customising' software settings and machine functions spruiking 'warranty fear-mongering' as insurance that you don't try. The company also has numerous conflicting versions of truth depending on which 'tech' you are hearing it from. Surely they know a half-intelligent person will look under the hood, do some research and think, "why pay this much for a laser that uses the same motors/drive and pcb boards as machines one third the price"? They know that question basically leads to the realisation that your $32k's worth simply buys you a warm fuzzy 'Trotec' feeling. And a bunch of wonderfully technical sounding acronyms pasted on the laser lid to make you believe that even the word "Technology" is a wondrous selling point. Let's face it, "Trotec" is a great tagline for boasting around influencial business buddies about your amazing, swisho 'Austrian designed' machine. However in reality it's no different to a premium chinese built laser when it comes to getting things cut and engraved ... official rant over ... That is good to hear for the purpose of testing, but you certainly won't get any more until they've got your boat-load of cash

Hi Sean, Yes, It was happening with any file, object or artboard. However, I don't remember specifically trying a new, single object print though. But did save and open many different existing files to try and print from. They were all files that never had any printing issues previously. But you know what is now very interesting? I just tried printing from the Beta version again since completely removing the 1.9.0 and reinstalling 1.8.5, and now the Beta version seems to be printing to the laser print output without issue. How frustrating and confusing!

Hi Sean, Thank you for your follow up. I can send the crash reports from Beta version 1.9.1.963, is that ok? Unfortunately I had to uninstall 1.9.0 and revert to 1.8.5 to keep working as we have a tight Easter deadline. I am guessing this probably removed the crach report file you would have wanted, sorry. But the Beta version was crashing just the same anyway. Our creative biz uses a Trotec Speedy 100 with JobControl software 11.1 and 11.2 (on two different computers). Both versions work the same in practice, it's simply that one computer has 11.1 which I usually output/print to, then transfer the .tsf files out over the network to the cutter laptop (which has 11.2) when it comes time to cut our sheets. I will transfer the files to the dropbox linked account for you. Regards

Admins please note: The issue described above is different to the one in this 1.9.0 common issues post by Patrick under dot-point two. I need to make sure that is clear so as not to be overlooked.

Hi Devs/Admin, Since udating to 1.9.0.932 I am now experiencing crashes when printing any file using either above version. We use Designer for product creation and outputting to our lasers print spool for acrylic cutting. These crashes do occur for every print situation, not only from multiple artboard files as noted in the Beta fix changelog. Resaving/re-editing files do not help. Our business is currently at a stand-still as I made the foolish mistake of saving our current full creation using the latest 1.9.0 format. Now I cannot open it in 1.8.5. I could try and jump through many '.eps export hoops' to attempt print access and rejigging in 1.8.5, however I do have a lot of integration/grouping optimisation in use and always need to print from the native .afdesign file into the laser print spool. These are all lost if I export to .eps then back to .afdesign. Basically if I can't print native from Designer it makes my process of setting up our creations for production laser cutting a logistical nightmare. Especially when printing the hundreds of different pieces with highly optimised acrylic cutting-sheet layouts. Years of experience/trial using our current process show that export/import (eps/svg) also opens up possibility for strange print/laser cutting variations in the final assembled piece. I have read through every possible thread to try and align this topic with a similar bug, however because we now have total printing lockout, I feel this needs immediate attention so we can get back to business asap. Will you require the crash report file from AppData > Roaming > Affinity > Designer > 1.0 (Beta) > CrashReports > reports ? Or some other location? I can also provide the full system info .txt file and program file used for designing/printing if you let me know how to securely get it to you. Main System (although the laptop now has the same print issue): Win10 Pro Desktop Intel i7 8700 3.2GHz 32GB Ram NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1070 Ti Please let me know what else you may need to assist. Regards

Thanks for clarifying and for adding it to the list.

Hi Patrick, Will upgrading this release patch reset custom interface settings similar to the 1.6.5 --> 1.7 upgrade? Thanks

My Apologies, I mistakenly believed this was the affinity@serif >> Designer Beta on Windows forum. Where adding collective voices for function we would like to see in the program, is the most effective avenue suggested by the development team. It's ok, email seemed to be the better channel.

It is important to help users make informed decisions. However, I really hope the team do not view this post as another attack. Rather an articulate voice of inquiry considering where Serif are aiming to position these products in the market moving forward.

Dear Affinity Team, I'd like to preface this post by first outlining that you should be very proud of the care you take in delivering programs with a good user friendly UI. I respect and thank you for that aspect. Unfortunately though, as a newer customer of both Designer (and Photo), I would like to express my frustration and confusion over the absence of two functions in Designer: 1. Curve/Path offset. 2. Accurate, reliable stroke expanding. I really am not wanting (or aiming) to appear as another "me too" whinge over these two hotly argued shortfalls. But I am having immense difficulty reconciling why in this day and age, a vector program would not have the above as integrated, flawless core operating actions? I can't help but restate the obvious here, it's not 1999 anymore. Stakeholders at Serif: You are not competing to "see" if you can be the first vector software developer to implement a wiz-bang new feature which will soon allow designers to "offset a path"! It has already been in use as a solid operating function for users of design programs for almost a decade and a half (maybe more). This is not a "feature request" or "program bling". In 2018 it's as embedded in the vector creation process as the foundational mathematical curve points are. It's like building a car, and proclaiming that wheels are optional becsuse you can start the motor without them. So why sleep on it and continue to avoid biting the bullet? If it's simply because you need to capitalise on "hotter" revenue development avenues (ie iPad versions) for cashflow reasons, then with all due respect, that should not be a sacrifice paying user are expected to make. However, despite the justifications or reasons (which could be argued endlessly from both user and dev perspectives), the one underlying fact remains; If you are charging money to compete in a market as a "ground breaking vector program", isn't it your responsibility and within your best interest to at least deliver the current expected level of functionality that everyday professionals use and rely? Do you really want to alienate that many prospects? I'm sure you don't and I know that nobody can force you to make these happen, but that's not really the only issue at play here is it? Yes, I can understand and appreciate the pressures and economics of development and re-tooling code, and the financial bourden of adding features then fixing bugs. And yes, I value and understand your desire to do things both "right" and "unique" with AD to separate your offerings from the crowd. But if those things amount to a program that has budding and professional graphic artists alike doing constant time sucking workarounds for everyday tasks, then what is so ground breaking about it being brought to market? Ground breaking should not equal "modern essential functions innovatively omitted". Should it? I can't help but notice a common theme on the forum, where it's almost expected the customer concede and accept vagueness on core functionality delivery. An almost "we should not be held accountable for what we do, or do not deliver". Maybe your completely overwhelmed and under-staffed, maybe your not! We don't really know do we? But, at risk of sounding a little indifferent, we are not shareholders in the business with you. It's not our role to know. We paid money for an advertised cutting edge design tool. You expected remuneration for your product, then that IS your role; to deliver that product. I would argue that a vector prgram without a usable expand AND offset function is not actually a vector program. Hard as this is to for you to make happen and embrace, you have decided that you can deliver. I can imagine it must be tiring and relentless feeling like customers are barking expectations at you through forum posts constantly. I can empathise with that as I'm sure often it's not pleasant. Although this can't dilute the reality of what users would expect they are "buying into" versus what's delivered. Users should not be required to beg for essential modern, core functions. Users don't expect to pay money for enhanced, ground breaking workflow then go backwards with time consumption. People pay money to have "things" solve problems and save time. As wiser people than me have observed about life; age is not our enemy, time is. So why force users to spend so much time trying to make functions exist where they clearly haven't been programmed to? Would it be too much to ask if you kindly provide customers the coutesy of when you will implement functional "curve/path offset" into Designer? I have been trying to find ways to bounce files between my 12 year old version of Illustrator (I do not enjoy using that program for outlining) for the one path offset process. But the challenges are too many and important layout elements get lost/altered in the EPS saving/transferring/offset/resaving process. Getting designs setup for the type of work I believed I could do with Designer has become a logistical nightmare. Using the demo for it's full duration didn't reaveal the shortcomings either, as I was focusing on trying to get know the things it could do well. Could I also please request of users who read this. Be mindful before posting with "expand stroke works fine for me". I have relentlessly tried to "squeeze" everything I can out of that function, but it is essentially useless for the kind of accuracy and complexity of work I need it for. It's limit of use for me has well and truly been exhausted. And FWIW: it is pointless attempting to think of using it for kerf compensation. Especially for complex "shape within shape" designs. I am also willing to accept you may completely disagree with my observations here. I won't disrespect that. All the best in your endeavour.

Bingo . Thank you @R C-R for addressing the question asked. And @gdenby for eluding to it in your first response. As R C-R reiterated, the intent of this post was not to seek further workarounds in lieu. I am already employing the approximations, which is WHY I'm asking for the needed cleaner, faster option. Have a great day everyone. I will see if I can find out more about the 1.7 roadmap and beyond.

Hello Developers and Mods, Almost 2 years ago a user posted this question which I'm hoping in this time has been addressed: I know that snapping to geometry is in effect with 1.6.5, but this still does not address the above. Was the ability to precisely create 2 node points at the intersection added to Affinity Designer? If not, when and why? Zooming in and out (to very large scale) is very time consuming when you have many intersecting points and shapes to create and edit. Not to mention, it's a non-exact work around at best for something which I assumed would be a vector work standard function. Thanks for reading.

Yessir, I do. Ah, now I see the confusion. Yes the acciedently posted image was a version before sorting out the anomolies. For some reason images from our older interactions were added back into the post, even though I removed them. It wasn't visable when I hit send. Anyway, I went back in and edited the post.

@JimmyJack Cool, although can you define what you mean? Are you referring; It's still offset after getting it to replicate your outcome, or am I missing a different reference?