Steve_N

Hi All,
Well, it’s been a pretty crazy week since the launch of V2!
This has been a real labour of love for us over the last year or so, and I can’t even begin to describe how hard the development team have worked on it. Not only getting the V2 apps launched, but also of course finally bringing Publisher to iPad. 
With this being our first paid-for upgrade there has understandably been a lot of feedback / questions around future updates and our pricing policies. I thought it was worth addressing / clarifying our position on some of these personally...
Updates to V2 moving forward
Buying V2 not only gets you all the new features you have seen, but we have various updates planned – including many more new features and improvements – which you will get for free. This will continue until such a time that V3 is released. We’re not sure exactly when V3 will be, but I can confirm we are not going to move to anything as regular as an annual upgrade cycle as has been speculated.
It’s worth saying too that V2 does include many under-the-hood changes to our underlying technology, and we have also been investing in several new areas of research recently. Some of these haven’t manifested themselves into new features yet, but overall V2 does give us a better platform to develop on moving forward and I’m sure you will be pleased with the updates V2 will receive.
Updates to V1 moving forward
While we did say on the FAQ that V1 would no longer receive any updates, I want to clarify that was about new feature updates. We will be updating V1 to fix any critical problems caused by operating system updates in the future. So if the next version of macOS breaks V1 we will endeavour to fix it. There will be a point in time when continuing to maintain V1 in this way will not be tenable, but certainly for the foreseeable future we will continue to patch. In fact, we have an update to V1 queued up for release very shortly with some fixes for Ventura and issues caused by a recent Windows security / quality update. 
We will update our FAQ shortly to make that clearer for everyone.
Offer period
In case you didn’t see, I’m pleased to confirm we have decided to run this initial launch offer until 14th December to give everyone the best chance possible to get it if they wish / have a decent amount of time to trial it. 
Upgrade pricing
It’s been really hard to see some of the comments about us not looking after our existing customers – we’re pretty devasted that anyone feels like that to be honest. But the fact is we felt our hands were tied somewhat with being able to offer upgrade pricing in a fair way. The main reason for this was App Store customers (which make up around 35% of our userbase). The problems with that are two-fold: firstly, we didn’t have a way from within V1 to validate an App Store purchase receipt to reliably ensure customers who were entitled to an upgrade could get one; and secondly, we could not find a good way for people to get that discount via the App Store. Us pushing upgrade customers to go exclusively via our own site (including customers who were previously acquired via the app stores) may also have put us in violation of App Store Ts & Cs which we were obviously concerned about.
I’m not saying that these issues were completely insurmountable, but any solutions we came up with would be messy, and most importantly could have resulted in some bona fide V1 customers struggling to get validated and claim their discount. We certainly don’t have the support resource here if we ended up needing to manually validate tens of thousands of receipts for example.
The only option we felt was safe to move forward with was a general launch offer, which would guarantee that every V1 customer could get the discount, whether they purchased directly through us or the App Stores. We knew a side effect of that would mean some new customers would end up receiving that same discount – but we felt that was a better option than V1 customers missing out. It’s also worth saying that while there has been some good press about V2, all our main marketing has been via email and through social media to our followers. In other words, we felt ok about it because we knew the vast majority of people who would find out about it or take advantage of the offer would be existing customers. I would be surprised if over the offer period customers upgrading from V1 didn’t make up more than 90% of our sales.
Overall I do believe us giving a 40% discount, along with the addition of the new Universal Licence of course, is offering fantastic value for money for those who want to upgrade. 
However, taking on board some of the feedback there is something extra we can do – we will offer a new free bundle of content exclusively for V1 customers upgrading to V2 as an extra thank you for your support. I’ve seen this suggested by a number of customers and it’s a great idea as it does remove the App Store conflict entirely. 
We’ll need a little time to put something together, but all customers who previously registered or purchased V1 and have since upgraded to V2 will receive a voucher code for this via email as soon as we can.
A comment on no subscription
I do want to say that some of the points above are exactly the reason why software companies move to subscription. Whatever you do with upgrade pricing, you still have the issue of customers who bought the previous version 3 months ago vs. those who have had it 2+ years. Offering perpetual licences also gives the additional overhead of needing to maintain the previous version longer than you would if everyone was on subscription / generally always on the latest version.
We are a small team so some of these complications are not ideal — all we really want to do is focus on developing our latest codebase, push out regular updates and continue with our mission to make great creative software accessible to everyone. 
But it does need to be funded somehow. We know you love our no-subscription model, but there also needs to be a level of appreciation that the alternative is having paid-for upgrades from time to time. That unfortunately comes with its own problems.
All of that said, I have to say we have been blown away with the response to V2 - around 3 times as many people have upgraded in the last week than we expected - and we really can't thank you enough for the support you have shown. More than anything the success of this upgrade puts us in a great place to continue investing heavily in development which is ultimately what it's all about, and we’re super excited to crack on with some great updates coming next year!
All the best,
Ash

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.

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.

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.

As a workaround, for anyone still encountering this bug in 3 years' time....

After applying the live perspective filter, group the layer (i.e. on its own) then apply a style to the group layer

Hey MCFC_4Heatons,
I've reproduced this. I think we've got a few similar issues floating around this so I'll tag it onto one of them. Thank you  

I don't know if this is something I'm doing wrong but applying the live perspective filter then applying a style to text has undesirable results, the style is only applied partially
 

For Designer and thus plain vector based editing/manipulation, one needs urgently vector based distort/warp/perspective tool functions, which sadly aren't yet implemeted or supported! - Everything else, which only works bitmap/raster wise for distort/warp/perspective here, or which performs a rasterization on a vector export, is unacceptable for a vector tool!
So what people (and I too) often are suggesting as workarounds here, are just poor momentary workarounds due to the overall Affinity Designer shortcomings and limitations in this regard. - Meaning ...
You don't really want to always have to use another third party vector tool just in order to be able to perform some vector based free distortion/warping/perspective distort on vector shapes, text and drawings. You really don't want to always have to reroute and make a vector-to-bitmap conversion, just in order to be able to perform a perspective distort/warp etc. on that bitmap/raster one then, which then in turn you have to re-vectorize (vector trace) in order to get a plain vector representation. ... all of that are just tedious and time consuming poor workarounds with many possible errors or falsifications during interoperation!

No-one does, if someone doesn't show any sign of sarcasm in a post, especially after there are tons similar to yours in this forums which are meant to be good advice.
Depends on the sector you are working professionally in. I. e. the combination of a seamless pixel and vector workflow is quite striking for digital artists who paint their arts on digital canvas. Also, it's quite usable for almost all demands in conservative printing media, i. e. creating ads for newspapers or business cards. I know, for latter some regions might have different taste for them, so the missing vector warp might be an issue again in order to create "fancy looking" stuff.
But wait! Let me guess! Your comment was yet another attempt of "sarcasm", I suppose?
For a real vector-only workflow, there are other things quite as problematic as the boolean operations or missing vector warping. For instance, the lack of real vector brushes, which—to me personally—is the biggest issue for a true "vector-app". For every other problem, you can find workarounds or call them "extra features, not (yet) implemented" and rely on third party software. But the lack of true vector brushes is simply a joke, if you want to sell vector software.

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.

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 

That fix went in between 1.7.0.368 and 1.7.0.380 so yes it's included in this release. I will adjust the fixlist

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Steve_N If you care to post the rooster. I can see if I can put my big mouth to the test! 

@Steve_N I really don't think so. Whole thing should take but a couple minutes. 
Just need one added step. Make a copy of the strokes before expanding.

I have a different interpretation of your starting point. If it's like the beginning of this GIF then there's no reason you can't do this in just a couple steps... regardless (within reason) of piece count (... because of a couple of Affinity peculiarities the process should actually be simpler than it is). Process after the GIF:
FYI...The process does, however, leave a "tiny" (up to you how small) channel in-between objects. My quick example it's ~5/1000mm. I'm sure you could go smaller is needed .
But I also don't understand this part of your description, "....and brush tool to create broader laser etching areas"

The idea is simple: 
Select all your lines give them a tiny stroke
Expand stroke
Boolean Add all
Boolean divide
Discard the big piece on the bottom
Done
BUT.... Affinity gives bad results expanding "tiny" strokes. 
So:
Select all your lines 
Resize them to something HUGE. (like this)
Edit: well maybe not THAT big. Tried it.... too many nodes. Go just big enough to make it work. Might take an experiment of two.

Give them all a "reasonable" stroke. I used 1. (and check the Mitre to make sure any corners are sharp)
Expand stroke
Boolean Add all
Boolean divide
Discard the big piece on the bottom
Shrink all the parts back down
Done
Oh and Affinity also likes to expand strokes with an excessive number of nodes. On a simple line style it might not be so bad.
Just keep in mind, the bigger you go to more nodes you'll get!
This hopefully will be fixed in v1.7. (....or I'm outta here )
 

I think to fully understand what you want a sample file would be nice. but if interlocking blocks, however intricate are your main goal then I would go with Dutchshaders method, this way you can colour each section with the colour you are going to export too. As gdenby has mentioned once you have your finished art you can duplicate it so you have a copy, then you can break the other one into its respective colour groups and arrange them for a more efficient cut and to minimise wastage.

Hi, Steve_N,
As a preface, there have been a number of posts by people using, or trying to use vinyl cutters, laser cutter, plotters. The issues faced seem to be that those pieces of hardware have device dependent drivers, and the drivers have to be able to interpret the graphic output. You might want to check what the laser cutter requires, or if the manufacturer says they support file types Affinity creates.
I'm a little unclear about what you intend to do. Specifically, "brush tool to create broader laser etching areas." Designer has a pixel brush, which I don't think would produce anything you want. It also has a "vector brush" but that just stretches or repeats a bitmap image along a vector path. 
Essentially, Designer works with areas, and assigns lines and fills to them. You would want to do all your tracing work w. the pen or pencil tool to define those areas.
What dutchshader shows is 1 method. I'm posting the results of another. I started w. a hand and forearm outline, a silhouette. I copied it just in case I messed something up. I then drew a quadrangular shape around a finger, and did a divide operation. I was left with a piece cut away from the forearm/hand, the finger, the rest of the forearm, and the leftover of the quadrangle. That I deleted.
Repeat. Note, straight lines and smooth curves tend to produce good results. Wavery lines can produce problematic results.  I don't know that they would produce unacceptable cuts w. a laser. A couple I looked at from other files and the nodes were at  the same position to .009 inch, but there were quite a lot of them near where the vectors intersected.
So I worked in an opposite direct from what you are proposing. I started w. 1 big part, and started cutting it into pieces. Working to put pieces together is much harder. I did spend quite a large amount of time early on trying to match the edges off single shapes into seamless larger forms. I went back and looked at some of them a few weeks ago, and at this point was able to pick out and remedy the flaws (which I did not know existed) fairly quickly. 

 

i think the best way is to duplicate and substract a lot.

substract_Gemiddeld.mp4