On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 02:28:57PM +0100, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
> 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)
        The ideas that were tossed around circa a year ago was a 
"mixing board" type of interface where you build up combinations and
relations. To some degree, there are alot of parallels to analog
synths as well, where you have this dozen input sources, and a dozen
filters, and a dosen places to hook them to. Lots of power there.

        Of course, this is far from a intuitive interface. If your've
ever played with an old analog synth and spent 20 minutes making it go
"swoooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhkkkakkkkkkkkkckakkcakkkkcacaaaoooooooooo" before,
and then actually try to make useful sounds with it, you knwo what I mean.

        For 99% of users, the best interface would probabaly just be a
list of "presets" of already written and saved "patches". 

        I belive this is how Deep Paint, works for example...

> > 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.
        heh, indeed.

> 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