"David A. Bartold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think a better solution would be a definable pressure curve, much like
> Wacom's Windows driver has. That'd probably be a feature of the
> general mechanism you described and perhaps what you have in mind. A
> user (or a brush designer) can define their own function and the mechanism
> would be usable for all tools, not just ones that draw by copying from
Pressure curves are indeed a good idea and should be implemented generally.
> The major problem with having different texture maps for each pressure is
> the amount of memory necessary to store them. Texture tiles generally are
> much bigger than brushes to reduce visible repetition. A texture of size
> 256x256 is not uncommon, and if there were 8 copies of that texture stored
> in a brush pipe file, each bitmap corresponding to a different pressure,
> then the file will be ~500k. That's a big download (and a lot of cache
> misses) just for one texture. Since many people download their copies of
> GIMP, that's a lot of bandwidth, too.
And do not forget that Gimp holds all patterns and brushes in memory
regardless if they are ever used. This is one of the main points why
I'm asking for spending some thoughts about a better data system for
The GIMP before adding just another data type like textures.