On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Bill Skaggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  I proposed this because it will actually boost the simplicity
>  > of managing brushes to adapt in effects and splashes, instead
>  > of doing the layer and rotation "technique".  ...
>  I gather from this that you would like to be able to pick
>  an arbitrary rotation, and that simply rotating in the
>  direction of motion wouldn't fit your needs.

There are indeed many brushes which would work best with a specific
angle control -- they are mainly 'edge-effect' brushes. Anyway, I've
already stated my belief that if you have directional rotation, a
normative rotation angle control is necessary.

>  >  Maybe in the eyes of a developer this might be considered 'bloat'.
>  It isn't a question of bloat, it's a question of keeping the user
>  interface as simple as possible while providing the capabilities
>  that are wanted.  Adding an option that doesn't get used is
>  not harmless:  it makes it harder to find the things that are
>  important.  As an artist, you wouldn't want to have the

I believe that we can reduce the number of
screen-real-estate-occupying options anyway, and
use an interface like the ink tool nib adjuster to simultaneously set
brush normative rotation and aspect ratio.
Also possibly scale -- being able to use the scroll wheel on the nib
adjuster to change brush scale makes sense to me, skew -- ctrl+drag to
skew, flip -- shift-click near a border to flip on that axis, and
aspect -- shift-drag.

(to be congruent with the rest of the GIMP, it would probably be
better to put skew on shift and aspect+flip on control, since shift
typically adds and control typically constrains.)

As far as the backend goes, I would expect values for skew, rotate,
aspect, flip, scale to  be independently stored and modifyable by
keyboard shortcut*, and mostly combined** into one transform matrix
after a value changes.

*by which I mean that they can be shortcutted, not that they are by default.
** looking at the brush code, differently scaled versions of the brush
are cached. If directional rotation was implemented, we'd want to
cache rotations as well, I expect. So the transform might work better
in two steps.

An example of this kind of interface in a raster paint program is in
Pixia (Windows).

>  controls you need buried amongst 20 useless buttons and
>  sliders, would you?  That's why everything like this needs
>  discussion and careful consideration.
>   -- Bill
>  _______________________________________________
>  Gimp-developer mailing list
>  Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
>  https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to