On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Alexia Death <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * be able to deliver constant distance and constant rate events
>> You mean events at a constant distance spacing or a constant time spacing?
> I mean both. The dream is that paincore would only need to worry about
Yes, that's what I meant, sorry.
> painting a stamp at a given event, the "where?" part is all handled by paint
> core. The distance in this case is the stamp spacing.
>> Is there any other way that the 'Use color from gradient' or 'Fade'
>> options could be replicated?
> Replicated? It's paint cores job to provide these two features and any other
> numerically controlled options and possibly expose their control values for
What you describe is redundant if you expose those separately... since
they currently effect either color or opacity according to distance
from start of stroke. That's why I said replicate.
I think you could improve this idea a lot by making some mockups,
where you can easily spot and eliminate unnecessary redundancies.
(I'm certain that there are quite a few neither of us has noticed.)
> Theres a check grid now in SVN. In my vision in tool pane each option that
> supports it has a checkbox to turn dynamics on and off and a button to curves
> about that specific parameter. Additionally there are sliders for scaling the
> dynamics as a whole for quick adjustment. If you load a tool the changes made
This sounds pretty good! I'd like to suggest the use of bottom-scaling
as well as top-scaling here:
that is, allow the quick adjustment to either scale down like 0..1
becomes 0..0.5 (scale == 0.5) or scale down like 0..1 becomes 0.5..1.0
(scale - 0.5). I can certainly vouch that I've wanted this a lot of
times for Size -- the minimum size ends up far too small sometimes.
> are forgotten. They are just adjustments to the current ie paintbrush, where
> as changes in curves create and "unsaved" tool that can be marked that way so
> the user knows that they need to save it either as a new tool or overwriting
> the parent.
Yes, mockup sounds like it would help. I think what you describe above
doesn't yet warrant the description of creating new user-tools. Mainly
because it does not support some things that are important at a
tool-level: Hard Edge, Clone-like behaviour.
Consider talking to peter specifically about this -- he has the 'Dabs
of paint' idea, which IMO is more correct than associating settings
with either a brush or a tool; In the same way that acrylic paint on a
brush has quite different physics than watercolor paint on the same
brush. What you are talking about might be called something more like
a tool-tip (yes, unfortunate but accurate; how about pen-tip?
IMO a good distinction is like:
* tool : what you are doing and how you are doing it
* tip : the precise effect that occurs when painting
* brush: the area and amount in which it is applied.
* paint : all of the actual pixels that end up being applied.
Gimp-developer mailing list