Tatom

First of all, thanks dor all of your exports. Unfortunately these solutions are not even close to my expectations from workflow side; Alpha is still visible or per channel view is colored and contains alfa info (or becomes transparent if I switch off alpha); I have to deal something else now, but I try you get back ASAP and make a video about PS and AS comparison; maybe that helps more. I even don't understand logic of the macro/procedural system in AF with 25+ years experience in working and helping developers in 3d field (it is like one of the Iray implementations I saw; I could work instantly with any node based shader editor system like Unity/Unreal/Cycles/Redshift, etc.; but Iray... I gave up understanding the logic inside - also it lacked up to date documentation).

So thanks, I will be back.
 

I'm pretty sure UX designers had a special training for the operation of the color picker tool; I can't believe they were able to make it work in that terrible way by themselves as it works.

I actually know nothing whatsoever about AP or AD other than they look like a pretty good contender to eventually break the Adobe monopoly over the software I need to use to make a living. Like all people who have been in this industry for a while and using the same software for 20+ years. You build up a tried and tested set of workflows and techniques. Changing is hard, changing costs you time and money so we try to make the transition from one to another as seamless as possible. Having the same but improved tools sets with extra goodies makes the process a lot easier for people who are already running and simply don't have the time to stop and relearn.
 
Running a brush along a vector path is quite a simple tool which has been around a long time in PS. There's no point me making the jump to AP until simple things like that have been included. I would then happily spend the next few months becoming accustomed to the new ways that AP does what it does.
 
Edit in command sounds interesting, but being in the file menu suggests to me that it means coming out of AP to edit your file? Even if that is easy I just need to run a brush along a path in my photo editing app. The process doesn't need to be complicated. Just select a path and a brush press a button and boom. Preferably exactly the way PS does it, but in AP. :)

+1
I used this feature in Corel Draw!, like 20+ years ago actually
Not that I'm saying every imaginable feature should already be in Affinity Designer *right now* of course. But I Love this feature too.

+1 for blend tool!

Well, this was disappointing to find...I really would've thought it was possible in Designer by now. 
I've been using this tool since Illustrator '88...and that came out in 1987. Between morphing/blending shapes and colors, it's a HUGE time-saver. Auto-trace has been around just as long but I think I'd even choose blend over trace if Serif isn't interested in both. I know all the Affinity programs have been written from zero, but Serif was there back in the day when these features were in use...

No news are bad news :-)

This is CorelDraw, since as long as I can remember. At least as far back as the early 1990's.

'I'd also like to chime in on the fact that you do have macro's (as said earlier) in Photo. So if you aren't happy with the workflow of channel packing, why not make a macro that does it for you?'

I'm not so deep in AF, but on channel-level operations it didn't allow me to record steps. Generally I very rarely use macros for anything (even in PS); I don't need them. When I do, I use 3rd party stuff for that.

'In regards to everything else that was previously discussed, I've also explained the available options you have for working with multiple channels in Photo (one of my previous posts in here). I'd highly recommend (as I said before) to continue tweaking your current workflow within Photo to best suit you, use the macro system and the available tools they have, as it really is far more superior than Photoshop.'

Well, I will see. I still have no idea who could I get back the Affinity example you uploaded from a freshly imported TGA created by someone else. Also it seems that alpha appears on all channels in your example file, I have to guess out how to change that. I also want to check if I link (place without embedding) an image from Affinity Designer as a channel to your file as Roughness (Alpha), will this work or not. There is a lot to discover and I don't like it. After many years any app what changes proven UX methods and forces me to to the same differently is a big 'no go', if from UX aspect it has no reason to do it differently.

First of all, thanks dor all of your exports. Unfortunately these solutions are not even close to my expectations from workflow side; Alpha is still visible or per channel view is colored and contains alfa info (or becomes transparent if I switch off alpha); I have to deal something else now, but I try you get back ASAP and make a video about PS and AS comparison; maybe that helps more. I even don't understand logic of the macro/procedural system in AF with 25+ years experience in working and helping developers in 3d field (it is like one of the Iray implementations I saw; I could work instantly with any node based shader editor system like Unity/Unreal/Cycles/Redshift, etc.; but Iray... I gave up understanding the logic inside - also it lacked up to date documentation).

So thanks, I will be back.
 

Used by 3D artists (or should be used). PS was a 2D application, but it handles alphas perfectly almost since it exists.
So that is not an excuse for anything. If I had no expertise in a field, I would make a research or I would ask someone who has, not to make bad decisions.
Technically it would be pretty easy to make it work with the current - terrible - alpha handling, just some creative mind needed.

Nothing complicated?
It was clearly implemented by someone never spent a single minute in the 3D industry.
If I as UX expert were hired to implement to worst and least efficient way of channel packing, I would clearly fail compared to the AF 'implementation'.
It is a bad joke.

But for Crimity:

I made a FilterForge filter for texture packing; if you have FF you could download it and prosper.
Still not PS (that is why I still have PS, it is faster), but helps you to solve this ridiculously unsolved problem.

https://www.filterforge.com/filters/14794.html

You can also put a new alpha as a new  layer , make white pixels  transparent in  Blend  ranges (gear button)  and give the layer "erase" blending mode.      It would totally replace composite alpha  with what you have in "erase" layer .
ps.  well. not replace actually, rather add.    to replace you have to "cancel" original alpha first with fill layer  on the very bottom

Click "composite alpha"  and you can see it same as in PSh ,  then Ctr+L or ctrl+M , select "Alpha" in drop down instead of "master"  and you cant tweak  it.   Not much different to PSh really except it still stays non-destructive.

This may not be nice, but you should check those things before you switch, if your work is in the professional field.
 
Affinity products are really great ..for the range of customers it was build. These are semi-professionals (and for sure professional designers) - but never for the game-industries.
Yes.. I'm also a person who tries to save money, but I never understand how a professional game-designer can say that he/she want's to save money on photoshop or whatever and complain about missing features in the cheaper solution.
There's a reason, why Adobe products are much more expensive. Yes, they are very old-school in many cases and yes, they are slow and so on - but they have so many more features, they work hand in hand together. You can't only compare the price or the much nicer UI of Affinity.
Photoshop for example is much faster, x times better RAW processing, alpha-channel as it should be , 3D, much better resizing, real 100% PSD file format (which is so important for a good game-dev-workflow), .....
 
So people.. Affinity products? For sure!! If you work as a DESIGNER or PHOTOGRAPH(!) -- definitely not, if you are a (professional) game-designer.
 
BTW: To all Adobe haters, which are game-developers.. did you recognized, that Adobe invests a lot of money for game-developers? Like Mixamo or that they bought Substances and work together with Maxxon (Cinama4D). I'm pretty sure, that Adobe will dive much deeper into the Game-Industrie in the next month/years. 

I was about to promote AP to digital painters and concept artists in my community as a photoshop alternative, but based on your answer @Patrick Connor I will make sure to support products with teams who care about the game art market, (including donating to open source projects like Krita).

Thanks for being very honest though, at least I know upfront before recommending AP to people in the games industry.

You know I don't agree with that and I stick by what I said - it makes no sense at all, I was actually pointing out that it was a problem for game dev, but its a problem for anyone who wishes to use transparency, especially any kind of developer and currently the way it works in Affinity Photo is an absolute joke to be honest. I'm a developer and I'm surprised how badly it has been implemented especially considering how easy it would be to implement. At this stage I'm not sure what the point of the alpha channel is, and sorry if I come across as being harsh, but it is pretty useless currently and if there is some magical way of putting it to use, it is in dire need of UAT, alpha channels are an industry standard its got nothing to do with our particular use case at all.

This is a massive issue, so much so that I'm going back to Photoshop - sorry I can't wait for you guys to sort it out, why on earth can you not edit alpha channels - it makes no sense at all.  This is a basic requirement for game dev.

Is there any way to get the developer's attention on this? The current workflow makes affinity photo unusable for any texture work in games involving alphas. Especially for Unity where you routinely have to copy roughness into the alpha channel of the metallic map.
I hate photoshop but this is a deal breaker for me. Give us the ability to copy paste buffer into alpha.

I still don't get it. At all. Alpha's in AP have been a complete mystery to me since day one.
In PS you can edit  alphas just like any other layer and it's as simple as it sounds.
in AP there are all kinds of edit and visibility buttons that either appear to do nothing or do what you least expect them to, and menu options that I simply, try as I might, do not understand. At all.
I've tonight resorted to simply saving a separate black and white image out and calling that my alpha. Does the job. Totally not what you want for a game engine, but I don't need that any more, I just need a black and white image, and don't really mind that it's not embedded as an alpha...
... although that would be very nice!

this is mind numbingly stoopud.

Why do this workflow so hard. What's wrong with copy/paste workflow ? The photoshop way . With this workflow we're doing too many clicks for a simple operation .
What's wrong with :
Step 1. Open image
Step 2. Ctrl+A -> Copy Image
Step 3. Select Alpha channel -> Ctrl+V - Paste 
Step 4. Save 
 
 

I'm not too sure what the confusion is about. When I originally posted this topic I had no idea how to copy image data into separate channels (a very popular thing to do in game development).
This feature has been around for a long time now in Photo, sure its a few more clicks but there is absolutely nothing complicated about it. You can isolate individual channels, create spare channels and paste those into individual channels, mask individual channels, etc. You have every operation you need to manipulate each individual channel of an image.
Here is a video showing how it is done in Photo.
I'm slightly confused as the feature is completely functional. It works and does what is required. Sure there can be usability improvements, but like I said above, there is nothing complicated about this.
I hope the video tutorial helps people who are looking to apply this to their workflow.

For the devs: I need this functionality on a daily basis as a technical artist working on games as well as any other artist working with textures on any project I've worked on. I was trying to switch over to Affinity completely when I ran into this issue and had to go back to photoshop. What I'm looking for:
Alpha should not have to be transparency. Like in photoshop when you load a TGA, alpha is not considered transparency and when working with some other formats like TIFF it is optional. Photoshops implementation could be better in allowing all formats to be optional on load so with formats like PNG you don't have to go through the main menu bar > Layer > Layer Mask > From Transparency then copy the mask to the alpha channel after loading. Should have a way to quickly select the channel you want to edit and paste or paint directly to it. Without this I'm stuck in Photoshop land.

Declaring a fact is not an offense.
I used the "no offense" term to declare that it is not 'personal', it is not claiming to 'hurt' feelings.
Facts are facts, even if someone dislikes them.
Of course I know that in our brave new snowflake world everything could be an offense and everyone could be offended by things, that is why I carefully used 'no offense'.
It is not personal. Just pointing on a problem in the process.