[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2006-05-07 at 1944.23 -0700):
[Some quoting reorg]
> But the important point I was trying to make, which I will repeat, is
> that I think we should encourage Philip to apply without worrying too
> much at this moment about the exact details of his plans -- there
> is plenty of time to talk that over later.

That I agree, if someone is already "known", allowing vagueness about
the details makes sense if that means he can get in and then polish
the idea in first couple of weeks and have a nice addition at the end
of summer.

> Also, I only quoted you in order to establish context, and if
> it sounded bad, that was completely unintentional.

I am used that in those cases the reply goes to the original or to own
mail ("sorry to reply to myself, but I forgot a note..."), not to
third party and with quoting. Now it is clear.

[Back to the unified paint tools system]
> GSR - FR wrote:
> > I am just pointing that new tools sound silly, when a more general brush 
> > system seems the solution. Take ink tool, I think it could have been done 
> > by just set the brush tip to react to things like speed and angle,
> The ink tool is actually a good example, because it works in
> a completely different way than any of the Paintbrush tools -- it
> uses an array of interacting "ink blobs", rather than just brush

Well, see it the other way around, implement the others like the ink
tool, and also make ink tool have fade and gradient features ("dumb"
tools have it... fade makes a lot of sense for ink tool, btw, but does
not have it). I did a quick look at the code and I read it as doing
polygons from one place to another. Other tools could do smarter
"stamping" and get similar results (reminds me some 3d apps doing
perfect looking surfaces like spheres, via triangles, while others use
triangles too but fail miserably and paint polygonal "spheres").

Or add airbrush feature to eraser... the point I was trying to make is
that there are multiple tools, each with separate controls, while a
unified system that allows creating tools, real or imaginary, by
mixing those controls seems nicer. Yeah, some will still require a
different system, but others not.

> marks.  Possibly it could be imitated by making brushes fancier,
> but the tool you get that way would be completely different from
> the current ink tool at the algorithm level.

I do not care about the algorithm, it can be particle simulation, old
demo scene tricks or pixies dancing around, what in the end matters is
the results and the flexibility of the system to get even fancier
results without having to fall back to tricks (airbrush erasing can be
done via masks, ie, but there is not airbrush clone, is there?).

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to