Chills

Yes, I only design for the big sizes, and of course I miss them too. I don't use smaller than A2, ever.
I don't think it's a good solution for Serif to try to pick a range of sizes that will make as many people as possible happy.
I would suggest Serif to build an underlying database of paper formats to search and supplement from, how many and which formats are default in templates would then not be so crucial.

Thing is they had them at one time and intentionally removed them; this is a duplicate thread:
 

Well said! I wonder how many of them know anything about graphics from a basic and first principles level!

With respect Walt, that's a pretty lame excuse! I get the impression that the developers live in a world of their own with only minimal acknowledgement to users needs.

You can add A0, A1, and A2 sizes to the list with about 60 seconds of effort. These are just presets so you can add whatever sizes you like. I recommend doing this in dark mode as the Save Preset As icon is invisible in light mode.

Such a procedure is cumbersome and incomprehensible. All DIN A formats should already be available when creating a new document.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Add+A2,+A1+and+A0+to+Photo+and+Designer+site:https://forum.affinity.serif.com

That is the problem and why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS.
It is used by Linux Devotees who follow the faith not the masses. 
As a SW geek it is a nice community, but as a desktop system in the consumer/commercial world it doesn't fly.
 

SW Engineering is my profession.  I have been involved in porting a POSIX RTOS (certified to SIL 3)   There is a lot more to it, and Flatpak is not the answer some seem to think it is. This has been discussed elsewhere at length, and some of the problems are those mentioned in this thread. Until the Linux community sort them out, it won't fly for Affinity.    What you are suggesting is a LOT more work for a very small market.  There is no way Affinity will recover costs.
However, the Linux users will be 2-5% of the paying users. What you are suggesting is a LOT of effort that will detract from what the 96% of users want.  It is the same with any features.  I am sure that you and I can come up with a "cool" feature that you me and my mate want, but virtually no one else. That will involve a vast amount of work (and ongoing work) so there is no way Affinity will do it.   Have a look in the suggested new feature section.  Lots of calls for Bar Codes for several years. Its an easy thing to do because Serif had the code previously, and it is easier than 2D Barcodes (QR Codes) that  have done.
Correct, but Affinity have said officially, multiple times in this thread: There are no plans to do a Linux version for the foreseeable future.
All I am doing is giving you the commercial and engineering background as to why not. (which I have seen in internal company [NOT Affinity] discussions in the real world) 
The objections to my reasons are all wishful thinking and more religious in nature than based in any reality.

So what if Affinity uses the same Linux as Resolve?  CentOS 7.3 and only that one.  IF you are on Fedora (or any other Linux you are on your own.

There are many other things that Affinity can do with the Canva money that 96% of their market want, long before they look at a Linux version for the 2-3% of their market.

And there we have it. Refusal to accept reality with "so-called "facts""  Sorry, but they are facts. However, as you admit, there are no professional tools on Linux.  Not strictly true, there are a very few.
You then have the fairy tale/propaganda that if the tools were available, lots of people would jump ship.  With absolutely no evidence other than the religious zeal you find in most cults.  If there was *ANY* truth in what you were saying, Adobe would have a Linux version of their tools.    Resolve would support more than just one current distribution (and version) of Linux.  
No matter what the Linux cult would like to believe, there is no commercial argument for doing Linux versions for Affinity, or Adobe or many others. 
BMD did Resolve on Linux because they ported it from another POSIX OS to ONE version of Linux when the cost of a single seat was around $250,000, and you had to buy the hardware desks to go with it. None of the users wanted Linux per se, they wanted Resolve, and it came with the computer it ran on that just happened to run Linux.   When BMD  went to a stand-alone Resolve that was $1000 and did not need BMD hardware, they did MAC then Windows (but NOT Linux).  It was some years later they release the stand-alone Linux version because they already had it.  Otherwise, there would not be a Linux version of Resolve.  BMD created their own Linux market on ONE SINGLE DISTRO of Linux.
There are also many solid technical reasons why Linux is a very poor choice for an OS for anything. This involves the architecture.  I mentioned it before but the Linux Devotees don't seem to understand OS and RTOS architectures.  Tanenbaum explained it very well and undergraduate level. It is a complex subject, and it is difficult to explain it at a lower level than that.

If we look at the Blender download numbers last year it seems about 750,000 downloads were made for the Linux operating system. That might be mostly Hollywood, who knows. But, if just 5% of those Linux Blender users are interested in more generalized graphics work on their Linux system it might represent 37,500 copies of the Affinity suite sold.
For contrast Blender for Windows was downloaded 15 million times and Blender for Mac almost 2 million times.

When Affinity was Mac that was a sizable chunk of the market.  At the time, and still is now, Windows was the largest desktop platform in the world.  IT made sense to go to that.  Linus is, a very small part of the desktop market and very fragmented at that.  This is why for BMD Resolve the Linus users are screaming for a Flarpak version.  Depending on the applications, it is a lot more work to support Linux than any other platform.  If Linux has the same market share of the desktop as Windows or Mac there might be an argument for doing it. There isn't.
What we do see is a lot of disingenuous arguments from the Linux supporters, of the like you only usually see of the religious and political cultists.  BTW I am not anti Linux per se. I have three flavours running here.  Two of which I doubt any Linux users will have heard of.
 

Thanks for proving my point about people repeatedly labouring points that have long been proven.
The commercial reality is well understood. 
The percentage of market also even allowing for margins of error. 
 

I just respond to those labouring the same points time and time again.  They won't accept the facts and commercial reality.

This is why Linux Devotees are ignored by most serious software people. But if you are going to play that sort of silly disingenuous game then for Linux the number of unsupported versions is in the thousands not hundreds. 
I notice that it is only the losers doubt the numbers for things like market share, but only for their specific case.
It is all down to religion.
 
 

This is why Linux Devotees are ignored by most serious software people. But if you are going to play that sort of silly disingenuous game then for Linux the number of unsupported versions is in the thousands not hundreds. 
I notice that it is only the losers doubt the numbers for things like market share, but only for their specific case.
It is all down to religion.
 
 

This is why Linux Devotees are ignored by most serious software people. But if you are going to play that sort of silly disingenuous game then for Linux the number of unsupported versions is in the thousands not hundreds. 
I notice that it is only the losers doubt the numbers for things like market share, but only for their specific case.
It is all down to religion.
 
 

Unfortunately, it is usually the case with Linux supporters.

Having been involved with companies having to do it: I can assure you I am not.  There are many problems. Which is why BMD (who I am not associated with other than as a user)  only support 1 version of one distro.

I have been involved with RTOS and critical systems' development, but not Linux.  I have, however, seen the discussions about Flatpak and understand that it is not (yet?)  the silver bullet some suggest.  The fact that Flatpak is even needed highlights a serious problem.

Cloud based storage is a complete non starter…  Your images are ripe to be used to train AI, stolen, or lost…
Robust local storage is really the only option… But backup, backup, backup!!!

I have been involved with RTOS and critical systems' development, but not Linux.  I have, however, seen the discussions about Flatpak and understand that it is not (yet?)  the silver bullet some suggest.  The fact that Flatpak is even needed highlights a serious problem.

Early on in V1, on this forum they announced that they were working on a DAM.  They then walked that back and later said there would be no DAM.
My workflow requires an integrated DAM (not the work around that I have been using).
Adobe is my solution.  As I have mentioned before, Photoshop is so far ahead of AP there is no way that I would go back to AP.
Plus over the last year I have created thousands of assets in both LR and PS.  I will not endure the pain associated with moving back to Affinity apps…

I think you're right. Of course it's impossible to know what Canva are intending for the next version of Affinity, but I think there's much more chance of some sort of DAM being integrated into v3 of the Affinity suite, than there is of them producing something now for v2.