Steps

+1 for sticky settings

Bad news is that it's still missing in version 1.7

I hope this has some priority, because it's pretty annyoing to have this extra step every time.

Nope. This results in PDF 1.4. Affinity is just not capable of exporting PDF 1.3 format because the used 3rd party lib does not support it.

@tapodi I also just stumbled into this problem. In another thread devs said that there will be no support for this, because Affinity uses a 3rd party lib for PDF export which just does not support this. After receiving a bad print from the PDFs I will send my printer PNGs instead now. :-/ Saal Digital as well as meinspiel.de both want PDF 1.3 formats. So it's not an uncommon format these days and the age is not a real reason to deprecate support if it's still used in production. My 2ct.

I just figured out that this was requested a year before my thread: TL;DR: Real PDF 1.3 support is still missing. My "PDF/X-1a:2003" pdf export resulted in a bad print from my printer (meinspiel.de). Tsupport send me a preflight report clearly stating that the document is PDF 1.4 compatible.

This is not correct. The option "PDF/X-1a:3003" leads to an PDF 1.4 document as @Altod already pointed out. I just received a bad print from my printer (meinspiel.de) because I used this profile. The printers support send me the preflight report (as I don't have such tools) and it clearly states PDF 1.4. So I would like to repeat his feature request: Serif, please provide support for PDF 1.3.

Windows. See my signature.

Of course, but this is not new. We have hundreds of those DAM/lightroom suggestion threads.

It's a confirmed bug and should remain broken for a while. I reported it a year ago and: Yes, it is really annoying and makes no sense.

I liked your style to prove that quoted statement wrong just with one screenshot.

@v_kyr You are so mean.

Since DAM, Linux, Android and a MoviePlus replacement are requested over and over again in new threads I really don't get why there isn't a FAQ post pinned. I start to believe Serif wants a daily DAM suggestion thread. :-D

And they are right if their app requires anything that is new in a recent API level. It indeed really takes a long time until a new Android version comes to the majority of deivces. Apple pushes iOS updates really hard and annoys you with update reminders. At my company we also have iOS development and for compatiblity testing some iPads should stay with an older version and how hard Apple tries to force updates is really another story to Android updates which give you a reminder once and never come back to ask again. Also of course most Android devices don't get updates anymore anyway. And yes, it's annoying. We want to switch to Android 7 as minimum supported version, because we desire to use some Java 8 features. But there are still some working client devices out there that only can upgrade to Android 6. TL;DR: It really depends on the API level you need how many devices you can reach. If you need the latest Android features you have a problem. If you can live with an 5 year old API you can reach nearly all devices (and fragmentation does not matter).

I don't know what these apps are, but I'm both Android user and developer. The fragmentation does not really matter to me since my minimum API target is Android 6. I currently don't need or use any features of the higher versions and the app runs fine on about 300 client devices with mixed Android versions. I assume that this is also true for most of the apps out there.