Dazmondo77

Yes, it's so sad, since the program on the other hand works really fine and quick. I use it for simple scaled graphs and schematic drawings and I'm really missing the dimensions in a scaled graph. You may have read the shit storm appearing in this forum when Designer 2 was published concerning this missing feature. (I cannot tell it in other words…)
Every Update (now 2.0.4) Im eagerly waiting for this line type…
We hope for the next future.
Regards to all the hopefully patient users…

Saw this earlier and thought I'd have a go at making a vector brush, which as turned out pretty well, although the two brushes (attached) are comped together from an handful of images from free image sites, and not great quality - I think, as the brushes may come in useful, I'll take some photos and do it properly at some point.   
Screen Grab.mov Water Brushes.afbrushes

I 100% agree with the sentiments expressed here. As to whether Affinity are really aiming at the professional market, their marketing suggests as much. I unwittingly triggered an avalanche of resentment from some users for daring to even mention the word 'pr*fessionals', but I stand by it and point people to Affinity's own home page, where the very first word on the page is 'Professional'. They go on to say, 'Since its inception, Affinity has gained the trust of millions of professional users worldwide …'. I think @debraspicher is right though in saying that their focus is on screen media, not print.
@Beniamino, I've been around as long as you have with a matching history by the sounds of it: Quark > InDesign > Affinity. I'd say ours is a pretty common story. I'd still be with Adobe if it wasn't for their greedy subscription-only policy. And Affinity version 2 was a real disappointment for me. Like many others, I was hopeful that V2 would fix the big issues we've been providing feedback on for years. When it didn't, I concluded that there's no point holding our breaths any longer—we just have to lower our expectations if we wan't to enjoy the sans-subscription freedom Affinity gives us.
Incidentally, I've just started a new job where I'm back using Adobe CC. And oh, what a relief it is. I was worried that, after an absence of several years, I might have forgotten how to use it, but those old keyboard shortcuts were still there! Just like riding a bike it seems. 🙂

Saw this earlier and thought I'd have a go at making a vector brush, which as turned out pretty well, although the two brushes (attached) are comped together from an handful of images from free image sites, and not great quality - I think, as the brushes may come in useful, I'll take some photos and do it properly at some point.   
Screen Grab.mov Water Brushes.afbrushes

@woefiI've just watched the video a number of times and noticed your Layers Panel was slightly wider than default. I've make mine as wide as yours by positioning the left side at about 90mm on the Rulers and extending the the panel so it sits at about 180mm on the Rulers (as seen in your video) and I've added a new layer and hey presto reproduced the issue. So you are indeed seeing the issue I mentioned in the other thread:
'The other recipe is when you make the panel width wider. This one does not have a fix version on it yet' We should hopefully get this fixed as soon as possible.

You're right, it's the same issue. But note that it's not duplicated shapes, it's moved shapes. Draw a path with two nodes, move it, and then trie to option+drag select the nodes. You need to drag around where the nodes originally were.

Ok, I think probably the best compromise right now is that we just make it that:
- Single click: adds a mask
- Alt-click: opens the menu
The vast majority of the negative feedback with the V2 change was requiring two clicks to add a mask, so at least we get back to that behaviour. Only negative vs. what we have in the beta right now is will now require two clicks to add an empty mask (as that will be part of the menu options, along with range and compound masks)

The other possibilities of right click and long press I think we just want to give more consideration to, as both things we don't really have elsewhere on action buttons such as this.

Does this sound alright for now?
 

Grumpy grandad in:
First; I love Affinity's apps. I'm a total evangelist and convinced a lot of customers and colleagues to purchase it. I have been a "Affinitier" since 2015 and I won't go back. So please, don't take this as a free light ranting.
I'm tired. I'm frustrated. Because of tables. And I have been this way since Publisher came out. I can't understand by Affinity decided to make tables as a separate monolithic object only.
Why, in the name of the design gods, they decided to make it like something outside of the text (Something that even the cheapest, crappiest text editor app understand).
Why, in the name of the design hell's lord they decided that tables can't spread through text containers, columns and pages.
Why, in the name of sanity, can't we set a fixed width to a table, or set fixed width to a column, or block the width to prevent Publisher resizing them whenever I move any other single column, making a nightmare to set the table layout.
I'm tired. This is the single cause of friction and discussion inside out studio team. This is the cause of delays and multiple errors on our work. It is the cause that we have started to make tables in a larger document apart so we can work with big tables before segmenting them to be placed into the final layout. This is why we fear to add or move any design element, because the hideous tables will no spread or move correctly in the documents breaking all the text workflow. This is why we fear to modify a table layout, because we will have to do it on all the segments of the table.
Our last work toke 4 extra hours just because of the tables. Because of the need to segment it and re-layout it after any document modification. And that's 4 hours I can't pass onto the customer because is not their fault.
In 2019, Affinity recognized that this was a very requested feature. Now we are in 2023, and that forum post is deep under into the vault of the lost threads. But we still have to design tables with virtual scissors and glue.
Publisher v2 has been a great improvement on a lot of things, but this table thing is outrageous, and just now, in the middle of a urgent complex corporate document full of tables, it is wat is making us to be working on Sunday instead of walking the dog in the countryside.
I don't know what more to say. I wish Affinity to tell us something more that "we know it is requested we will look into it, someday"
For all the love that I have to the team, I hate tables in Affinity. And I hate to be inside the studio trying to make tables to work on Sunday.
Grumpy grandad out.

Thanks, Callum
I really appreciate your quick and sincere answer. Please, don't interpret our ranting as a recrimination or harsh criticism. I love your team's work and I really appreciate the hard work you all are doing to make this suite the best in market.
As I said, it is just a grumpy vent because we have been the last two days trying to get things done and spending more time just making tables work than in the whole project design and layout, and we feel exhausted of it. I have hope this will be addresses in the future (the nearest the better) because just now we have a studio with three people in a bad mood because we can't just design an important project.
For now, knowing you know it, is all I can have and it is fine. We will cope with it.
Thanks again and the best for the team.
Daniel

It might only be me but putting blur down the bottom in v2 whereas in v1 it was at the top so was automatically selected is a pain (so much so I’ve gone back to v1) when your doing tons of them, just takes that bit longer each time. Blur is the only fx that you would possibly use a lot (I just mean more than a handful) so should be first still. it’s too large a panel to just leave open. Related is that you can’t check the scale box until you’ve set up the fx unlike v1. If your mouse is down in that area anyway you want to check that first not last.
While I’m at it, in theory you could use the quick fx panel but it is also a bit annoying as it doesn’t stay expanded so again that is a bit more long winded than it need be.

I agree up to some degree. I mean, for some people like me who suffers of carpal tunnel, long clicks put more strees in the wrist. But following your idea, what if right click on the mask icon is what invokes the drop-down menu?

In the latest beta when you click on a value in the guides manager you should be able to use up and down arrows to nudge the value, as well as mouse scroll wheel. As with other fields holding alt will change nudge / scroll increments to 0.1, and holding shift will change to 10x

This is now in the latest beta build

Hi,
I want to move these feedbacks out from the the Auto-Cleaning feature now that the thread has been fixed.
I realised it was the wrong place so sorry if I made confusion there... 😖
These are some digressions I've collected about this tool, coming from both users and personal experience.
I think Paint Mixer has an impressive potential but I'm still struggling in making credible and usable brushes for this one... 😅
Probably there are some wrong expectations from my side, but using it "as is" it still looks more like an "advanced" blender or "Pixel Mixer" than a painting tool (to me at least...).
 
The behaviour of the Strength slider is clearly non-linear

It seems to start acting as a paintbrush close to the end of the ramp

mixerBrush.mov    
In order to make it more credible you need to paint into a filled layer, so it needs a "one layer" approach for illustrations.
Also, using tablets only Nozzles Interpolation and "Geometry" Jitters work properly.
Maybe HSL Jitters or Wet Edges are skipped by design, but Flow's variation does nothing at all (both Jitter and its context bar value).
Sub Brushes > Erase mode do not work too.
Basically almost 80% of tablet's dynamic looks disabled and the only parameter which rules interaction (Strength) does not have its Jitter and needs to be changed manually.
A user suggested to decrease spacing... But with the smallest spacing possible on macOS it is even worse.

Screen Recording 2023-03-15 at 09.03.37.mov    
This video is made painting on an empty layerIn the video below you can see a different tool (larger nozzle) and background colour (opaque layer)

Screen Recording 2023-03-15 at 09.24.15.mov   No great changes also you can spot other issues such as the "blocky" effect or the mixing that happens "before" crossing colour areas.It is true that I'm not a photo retoucher, and AP is "photography-first" so for sure its behaviour is useful for these channel and frequency separation tasks/workflows.
For sure illustration is still perfectly feasible...

But speaking as an illustrator, I find it still hard and "confusing"... Also it requires a totally different design strategy.
Maybe this happens because of my forma mentis and when I read "Paint Mixer" I think of "colours" rather than skin smoothing or similar tasks... 
Am I approaching the tool from the wrong point of view?
 
 

Yes, this is a true problem -- it is unthinkable that 3rd party providers would be required to deliver material in so specific format as e.g. PDF/X-4 (and exclusively so without including mixed content in how they build up their PDF content). PDF/X-4 is often seen as a kind of a magic wand because of being basically tolerant of mixed content and letting late-bound (print-shop/RIP-based) rasterization. It is absurd that it should be incompatible with non-PDF/X based placed PDF content.
In addition, I have learned in last three or four years (during the time I have used Affinity app suite) that PDF production is not necessarily nearly as automated and "final" as I have thought it is. E.g. transparency flattening seems to be often something that is done as a prepress job rather than on RIP and basically something that requires skillful print personnel. Manual adjustments made by print personnel seem to be much more common than is generally known. Such routines might well be based on assumption that Adobe (or QuarkXPress or Corel) based production workflows have been used, so not only is the printer typically incapable of providing exact instructions (to avoid or correct erroneous output), but might actually end up producing unsatisfactory / unexpected results on paper because of such assumptions .
Affinity specific "PDF compatibility rules" are not something that print personnel is likely to know about.  There are other production quirks, too. All this means that in more complex productions some kind of prepress software is required not only to do proper preflight, but sometimes also to make corrections to production PDFs themselves.

You seem far more knowledgable on this than I am. What I know is that this last issue we went back to InDesign and things seemed to go smoother at the press, even though it was a bit of a re-learning curve for us. I really like Apub and Affinity products to use, and like Serif as a company, but if the suite is going to be used for serious production work, at least for us, I feel that this needs to be fixed. Again, thank you for your thoughtful and helpful posts. 

I was recording trying to reproduce and opening this thread at the same time...
 

Screen Recording 2023-03-12 at 11.23.31.mov  
It also makes the APP crash... As you can see... 😅
 
 
 

The whole package is quite complex, but here are few rules of thumb whenever placing PDF content and exporting to PDF, and PDF/X is involved either in export or placement:
1) If there is placed content using PDF/X-1a or PDF/X-3 (which are version 1.4 when produced from within Affinity apps), you need to export using PDF/X-3 or PDF/X-4, or any non-PDF/X-based method, to not cause rasterization / translated color values (e.g. rich black).
2) If there is placed content using PDF/X-4 (which is version 1.6), you need to export using PDF/X-4, or any non-PDF/X-based method using PDF version 1.6 or later, to not cause rasterization / translated color values (e.g. rich black). 
3) If there is non-PDF/X-based placed content, you need to export using non-PDF/X-based method using the same or later PDF version than a placed PDF content, to not cause rasterization / translated color values (e.g. rich black). The most compatible choice would then be PDF 1.7. Whatever the non-PDF/X-based choice used, live transparencies (opacity values and blend modes) would not be flattened (because Affinity apps do not support PDF version 1.3, which would cause flattening). In Affinity apps transparency flattening is only used in PDF/X-1a and PDF/X-3. 
4) Placing PDF as interpreted causes failure to read the overprint status of native objects. Also, if the files use embedded CMYK profiles and there is a conflict with the export target, or if the files do not use embedded CMYK profile and the document working profile (as defined in Preferences) that these files will be assigned with, and there is a conflict with the export target, CMYK color values of the placed PDF content will be translated at export time. This basically corresponds a situation where non-document CMYK profile is defined at export time. Letting Affinity apps interpret the placed content may also result in failure to map fonts (even when they are installed on the system), especially if the PDFs have been created with non-Affinity software (e.g. Adobe apps or CorelDRAW), even on the same computer. 
Here are demo files:
a) Miscellaneous placed PDF content exported using PDF/X-1a (all placed content will be rasterized):
 pdfxcompatibility_pdfx1.pdf
b) Miscellaneous placed PDF content exported using PDF/X-4 (non-PDF-based content will be rasterized):
pdfxcompatibility_pdfx4.pdf
c) Miscellaneous placed PDF content exported using non-PDF/X-based PDF1.7 (note that Adobe Acrobat Pro shows the color values of the non-PDF/X-based PDF at the lower left corner incorrectly; the true color values are shown using the Object Inspector of the Output Preview dialog box):
pdfxcompatibility_pdf17.pdf
d) Example of an export file (PDF/X-4) using interpreted placed PDFs (note the lost overprints):
pdfxcompatibility_pdfx4_interpreted.pdf
A couple of further notes:
Affinity apps always convert RGB values of native objects (shapes and text) to CMYK, also when using PDF/X-3 or PDF/X-4 which allow RGB definitions (this is unlike e.g. InDesign). Additionally, PDF/X-3 also converts image color spaces to CMYK, disregarding the value of "Convert image color spaces" setting...[EDIT: After rechecking, this only seems to happen if there is need for transparency flattening, and InDesign does behave here similarly.] When using PDF/X-1 or PDF/X-3, all transparencies are flattened by using rasterization instead of Boolean operations (which are tried to be used when exporting from Adobe apps or QuarkXPress). A long story short: Export using PDF/X-4 (while having the content placed to be passed through), or using non-PDF/X-based version 1.7, and if using the latter, remember to uncheck the "Embed ICC profiles". The latter will keep placed non-PDF/X-based content unchanged, the former will not. In both cases, your export files will contain live transparencies, in case not flattened in the placed document or on the canvas. If you need to export transparency flattened PDF/X-1a content and you have them in placed PDF/X-4 content, you are out of luck. That means: the content will be rasterized unless you can flatten it in the source files and reproduce.
Note: These tests and files have been created using the 2.0.4 Windows version of Affinity apps, but versions 1.10.6 and the latest v2 beta behave similarly, on both Windows and macOS.
 

Hi!
I was about to create a new thread about this, but since this one has been opened during all this time... I'll try to give it a shot as well. We've been trying to create some performance Macros in the studio and, sadly, the simple copy-paste (from clipboard) feature hasn't been implemented to Macros, even in V2. 
Maybe this is not a priority, but sadly... many useful automations and fancier Macros, could be created if this function was added.
- Enrique
 

I re-placed my attachment. In the fresh light of a new day I have found a way to do what I want to do that was probably patently obvious to most of you here, and I'm happy with the method. I can change the color of my painted cover lines to my heart's content.
It would appear as though my method may be similar to that which Dazmondo77 has demonstrated. I choose my swatch and then use the bucket and the Opacity layer.
Thanks for your help, Dazmondo77!
I might add, as usual, that these forums are a pleasant place to find help on almost any subject excepting brain surgery. I've been following the postings in the Beta section (I don't use Beta software). There appears to be plenty of improvements coming along nicely. Many bug fixes, too. I'm very much looking forward to the final version when it comes out. Now that the nay-sayers and whiners have disappeared for the most part, I'm sure the atmosphere at Affinity is much improved. Thanks to all of you for your hard and difficult work.
Oh, one final thing. Did you ever get Affinity ported to DOS? I've been waiting patiently. 😁

If you need more elements here I am with further investigations...
I'm using the Watercolour > Flat Shaped Bristles 02 where Accumulation seems to work.

Screen Recording 2023-03-08 at 14.25.32.mp4 I'm duplicating it then changing parameters to make it less complex... (Also you could spot a renaming bug here)
As you can see there is something dealing with Flow Jitter that creates a conflict.
If Flow Jitter is 0% Random > Accumulation Jitter seems to work
If Flow Jitter is 0% None > Accumulation Jitter is broken
 
Also Flow Jitter sticks back to Random instead of None just as it is supposed to be the default value.
So if there are brushes mixing these settings they're not acting as wanted, and all we've shown in tutorials and live sessions cannot be reproduced anymore.
 
 

Also... New brushes created in this version cannot use Accumulation at all.
The Flat Shaped Bristles 02 has been created during early stages of v2 Beta and retains that Accumulation behaviour (aside the Flow weirdness).
Here you can see me using the same nozzle and settings above, but "from scratch".
 

Screen Recording 2023-03-08 at 15.03.33.mp4.mp4 I cannot reproduce anymore the same brush I created in 2022.
 
PS. I'm using bold to spot keywords, do not read it as "screaming"... 😅 
 
 

I can confirm what Paolo has shown above, so there's no point on adding anything else to those issues. Hopefully this can be solved anytime soon 😊
- Enrique

Totally agree - Just imagine working on a warp group, on a selection of warp nodes and having the ability to use transform mode to grow, shrink, skew and rotate within a warp group, all snapping ------ next level

As prophet said it's that you're using vector curves as masks thats causing the rasterising you just need to drag the masks on top of each group with gives you a blue vector shape then drag the group onto the right side of the vector shape to clip, that should sort it - it shouldn't effect the gradients, they should remain vector on output
Masking will always rasterise - Clipping remains vector
Screen Grab.mov