Search the Community

I recently cleaned my oldest MacOS system of unnecessary and unused clutter i.e. removed old installer file residues and referenced caches, Xcode tmp files etc. The whole thing has set me back ~80 GB of disk space. Then I looked at some other unnecessary space wasters, and the whole FAT binary apps caught my eye. I then asked myself why I need arm-based (arm64) architecture code on an Intel-based (x86_64) MacOS, so why multi-architecture FAT binaries here at all? - Well the answer is I don't need any FAT binaries on this Intel based box at all because it's just an unnecessary waste of disk space. To give people an idea of what I mean with unnecessary wasted space here, I show you how much ADe V1 as a multiarchitecture FAT binary (including x86_64 + arm64 code) will occupy on my disk ... ... and that I can get back ~1 GB of disk space when I thin/strip it to just contain the one needed, x86_64 in my case, architecture here ... Now the same applies to APh V1 (2.65 GB as a fat binary) and Apub V1 (2.6 GB as a fat binary), which when striped to contain just one architecture will also give back at least ~1 GB each. Suppose I would also have all three version 2 apps too installed, then stripping all Affinity v1 + v2 apps to just the one architecture I need here, would give back ~6 GB of disk space here. If I would have additional Beta versions installed and then strip those too I would reclaim additional disk space. Of course it's not just the Affinity apps which, as multiarchitecture FAT binaries, occupy unnecessary disk space here, the same applies to all other bigger third party multiarchitecture fat binary apps here too! I'm sure I will get back another ~50-60 GB of disk space when stripping all installed fat binary apps on my old system, which BTW has only a small build-in disk and thus every free GB counts here!

I’ve lost nearly a day of work trying to fix this issue, and am not ready to give up on it yet. I would really appreciate the help of some of the Affinity Gurus with this issue, as it is driving me crazy. I’m using the latest version of Affinity Designer on Mac. I’m working on a vector illustration of a shark. and I’ve attached a sample of the project I’m working on below, along with some screenshots. If you look at the gills, on one layer (gills erase), I’ve used an erase to punch through to the green. Then, I’ve duplicated that layer on top, change the erase to normal and used it as a container for a vector texture. Unfortunately, I cannot get rid of a hairline thin stroke around the border of the shape. Only it isn’t a stroke, as the stroke is deactivated. More of a border that maintains it’s size as you zoom in and out. I though this could just be affinity showing me the outline of the shape, but this unwanted out carries through to the export. You can see exactly the same effect between the layers ‘lower side’ and ‘upper side’. This line is the same size no matter how much you zoom in or out, and again, it carries over to the export. I’ve researched extensively on the forums, and found no fix so far. Some similar suggestions hinted at an issue with anti-aliasing, but I’m not sure that it the issue. Any help on this would be really appreciated. Affinity_Error.afdesign

I am new to Affinity Designer, and looking to thin out a fixed width text (I need a thinner version of the text on a different layer for printing purposes). This is possible in Adobe Illustrator through the use of a negative "offset path", but I cannot figure out how to do it in Affinity, which does not appear to have an offset path feature. The latest post I can find re:Offset Paths in Affinity Designer: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/30221-offset-path/ Here is how people do this in Illustrator: https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/22315/how-to-make-a-font-thinner http://www.alison.co.uk/2011/11/22/how-to-make-a-fixed-font-thinner-in-illustrator/ Does anyone have a technique for achieving the same goal in Affinity Designer?