On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 15:34 -0500, Adrian Likins wrote:

> >> 5. It might be nice to have the stock round/square brushes be dynamic
> >>     brushes by default. (If I understand correctly, theres a small
> >>     concern that this might break some existing scripts?)
> >>     
> >
> > This has been discussed before.  From my point of view, I am not
> > concerned at all about the scripts but I am more concerned about
> > usability aspects.  The current bitmap brushes allow you to quickly
> > switch between different predefined sizes without having to play with
> > the brush size slider.  This is not so easy to do with scalable
> > brushes.

Why isn't this as easy with scalable brushes? We should have a decent
set of read-only parametric brushes in different sizes. That way you can
switch as quickly. But you get the advantage that the brush is also
nicely scaled with the new brush size control in the paint tool options.
While this also works with pixmap brushes, parametric brushes scale a
lot nicer. IMO we should only keep pixmap brushes for brushes that can
not be implemented as parametric ones.

>     hard and soft circles, hard and soft squares, hard and soft 
> "calligraphy" brushes, maybe
> a wider set of "grunge" brushes.  I'll see if I can come up with an 
> actual set.

Having more good brushes in the default setup would indeed be nice. We
should probably also throw out some old ones then or move them to
gimp-data-extras. Adrian, perhaps you want to take this overhaul of the
brushes set into your hands? Would be good to have a single person to
coordinate the effort and to make sure that a nice coherent set of
brushes ends up in CVS at some point.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to