On Saturday, July 31, 2010 22:33:56 Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> I think an IWarp tool would require mechanisms in GIMP that don't
> exist yet as none of the current tools, even if superficially similar
> (like the smudge tool) requires them.
Doing the iWarp tool in paint tool way was rejected because it destroys the
image very fast. Krita has such implementation and I suggest you try it.
> Should using an IWarp tool mean entering a separate "mode" where you
> then have to "apply and exit" it when done? That is somewhat ugly,
> isn't it?
This is the only way this tool can currently work without creating undue
degradation of the image while working. Once gegl is fully integrateed
however, It can be a sort of an effect layer/op in the graph.
> In IWarp, on the
> other hand, what happens when you stroke is that the displacement map
> gets updated, and the effect on the *original* pixels from when the
> tool was started has to be recalculated. (At least, something like
> this is what I recall from when I was hacking on making IWarp a
CAGE tool currently under development already creates a piece of such a tool,
a displacement map renderer. In fact, in many ways, the cage tool and iWarp
are alike. Once cage tool is done, spawning an iWarp tool form its code should
be trivial. All you need is to replace the UI code to brush instead of polygon
editor and create the displacement map. Render pipleine should already be in
Gimp-developer mailing list