I don't know PS after CS3, I heard it had horrible performance, by the way :)
After all, I did not try to imply that the brush engine is being neglected and
I needed to tell you to work on it, of course not. Just statet what I think is
necessary, if that's already being approached, simply take it as an
confirmation for your efforts.
On 07/19/2010 10:46 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On 7/19/10, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
>> If there is something to
>> work on in, especially the brushes section then it is improving the brush
>> engine to give greater GENERIC flexibility
> The brush engine is already actively being worked on. You probably
> missed all v2.6-v2.7 reviews. Go read them, or, better, try 2.7.1.
>> - take a commecrical brush engine as an example - I only know the PS
>> one and I think that's what's needed.
> Let's get it straight: are we talking about brush engine before or after CS5?
> The Photoshop's brush engine *before* CS5 is not much different from
> the current GIMP's engine. There are not so many missing things in
> GIMP right now (like dual brush). I know that for sure, because I
> reverse-engineered brush dynamics in ABR.
> The Photoshop's brush engine *after* CS5 -- now, that's a whole
> different thing, because Adobe is now trying to bite a piece of the
> pie that used to belong to Corel, SAI et al. The GIMP team seems to
> have agreed that Krita and MyPaint are doing a damn great job there
> already, so they [GIMP team] aren't going to do natural brushes or
> media simulation
> Alexandre Prokoudine
> Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer mailing list