Re: [Gimp-developer] Is an incompatible change to generated brushes acceptable?
Nathan Carl Summers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Is it possible to redo your logic so that the the old hardness scale is > used, but it's possible to have negative hardness? I thought about this and I don't like it. Although technically possible it IMHO doesn't make sense because a "Hardness" of -0.5 doesn't map to something easily understood. > Alternatively, we could use a fileformat versioning system to keep > backwards compatibilty. Right now the code saves backwards compatible brushes when the elliptical shape is selected and the Number of spikes is 2. When we abandon this, this is possible. The question is: Is it worth it? I asked my original question to get a feel for the number of generated brushes out there that'd need to be changed. Jimmac told me on IRC that he has *one* generated brush he changes on the fly. For him the change in the hardness scale wouldn't pose a problem at all. I suspect that this is true for most users of generated brushes out there. I'd like to avoid as much conversion crud as possible (although it might not be that hard if we abandon backwards compatibility as mentioned above). Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://simon.budig.de/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] "Extrude"-filter and lots of triangles
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Markus Triska wrote: > I'm for now using a quick and terrible hack to fill the triangles (see > attached source if you are curious) and want to ask: Which method do > you recommend to fill lots of triangles from within a plug-in? Is there > a (fast?) Gimp function for this that I can use, maybe capable of > anti-aliasing? Well, the quick-and-dirty way of doing it would be to select a triangle shape and use the GIMP's fill function. :) I'm afraid I don't see why there is a lack of locality here: each triangle to be filled indeed has locality. Of course, if the triangle is sufficiently small, only one tile needs to be involved. Perhaps what you are really saying is that the tile cache needs to be really large to be effective because there is not much between-triangle locality. Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Is an incompatible change to generated brushes acceptable?
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Simon Budig wrote: > Hi all. > > I am currently working on some tweaks to the generated brushes (the > brushes you can configure interactively). In Gimp CVS you can > generate brushes like these: >http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/files/generated-brushes.png > > Note, that currently the new functionality does not affect existing > generated brushes. However, when I fiddeled with this stuff I got the > impression, that the hardness-parameter should be a bit more extendable > to the soft side of the brush - IMHO hardness 0.0 is not yet soft > enough. > > I have a patch sitting here, that makes more soft brushes possible, but > since this patch still maps the range from 0 to 1 the hardness for > existing generated brushes would effectively be reduced, i.e. existing > brushes will look softer when loaded with the next release of the GIMP. > > Do you think this is acceptable? Note that the current hardness could > be reached easily by dragging the slider a bit upwards again. Is it possible to redo your logic so that the the old hardness scale is used, but it's possible to have negative hardness? Alternatively, we could use a fileformat versioning system to keep backwards compatibilty. Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
