Tuomas "\"spectrolite\"" Kuosmanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 09 Feb 2001 11:32:16 +0100, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > This mail comes from some discussions I had with Sven around the time
> > just before 1.2.0, the recent discussion about textures and natural
> > painting and a chat on IRC yesterday with Sven.
> > 
> > [ SNIP ]
> [ WARNING: This mail contains some scary ideas ]
> [ SNIP ]
> Another thing is I really wouldnt want to *lock* the parameters to the
> brush file. It would be nice if the options dialog had a checkbox to
> "[x] use default values" but unchecking that would make it possible to
> remap the XInput modifiers to different things. It would also be good if
> one could  then save this new resulted brush in a new file.

Yes, one thing that would be really needed is a good interface for the
multidimensional providers. Actually all of them could be edited with
the same interface, and just on save time you would decide if it
should be saved as a texture, brush or pattern (or anything else we
want to come up with)

> > I'd think that a user wishing to use a brush as a pattern can always
> > load the brushfile in the gimp, and save it as a pattern (remember
> > that we talk about general pipes here already: laoding a brush and
> > saving it as a pattern will result in a pattern that changes according
> > to the input state in the same way as the original brush does.)
> So would this mean one could have something like multilayer XCF files as
> patterns, that "dig in" the layerstack if one uses more pressure? This
> would be pretty awesome. The "Tommer" example comes to mind first: Have
> something like this:
>     Layer 1: skin pattern
>     Layer 2: some red goo
>     Layer 3: some tissue layers
>     Layer 4: guts and stuff
>     Layer 5: rib bones or something

exactly. and it is actually quite a good and funny example.
> Yes. This is a gross example, but it demonstrates the idea pretty well.
> So then you can draw "wounds" to a image, and depending on your pen
> pressure you get different stuff. Maybe I am on crack with this, who
> knows. But it doesnt sound like too impossible. Then the brush shape
> could be used as a transparency mask when composing the strokes
> together. Think of the brush as a layered "box" of soil, that has
> different stuff on different depths. Then the brush stroke can be tought
> as a shovel digging into this "box". I dont know if I made myself clear
> with this though :o(

if I understand you correctly, this means using a multidim. pattern
provider and a multidim. brush provider (aka a brushpipe)
> [ SNIP ]
> Again, I understand I cant even imagine _what_ one could finally do with
> this stuff, so it is best to leave some freedom there.

what you said were good examples how this stuff gives new
possibilities from the user perspective. But the main motivation for
such a work should be clean, elegant source code first...


Reply via email to