I completely agree. I'm just advocating for understanding how good, good performance is, and it's probably hard to compare programs that are structured differently.
What I really appreciate about Affinity is that it delivers superb performance and fundamentally renders what I draw in very, very high quality and updates instantly. I NEVER have pixel view turned on, and I use view without FX to give the computer a break more than to get better performance. That’s how quickly Affinity draws the user interface on my M1 and M2 Mac. And even on older Windows machines.
So, it's utterly surreal when I move the illustration over to other programs as pure vector, and these programs struggle to render it in something that can be remotely compared to Affinity.
I'm not looking for programs that continuously optimize one function or another to draw a bit faster, but fundamentally can display and update my work quickly in high quality. While I work, they may well cheat a bit with visual tricks, because I can't use anything that involves a total recalculation of everything I see every time I zoom or change something. If I have a HQ rendering option too, I'm good to go.
The classic preferences for rendering quality that no one understands, which are also in VS, are not understood or used by the average users. There is probably more need for Draft, Normal, and High Quality versions, where only draft is visibly worse.
But long story short, performance is important for us who do complex things, and for me to work meaningfully and see how it roughly ends up, it needs to be fast and look reasonably final. Affinity has shown that it's possible to come close with really good performance.
