On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:45:36PM +0200, Guillermo S. Romero / unnamed / Familia Romero wrote: > >Would it be feasible to generalize the brush stuff, and have all > >brushes be pixmap brushes, i.e. the "normal" brushes as used until now > >would simply use a monochrome pixmap of appropriate size? (At least > >conceptually, the actual implementaion could make some shortcuts.) > >Maybe even "procedural" brushes, were each time a brush pixmap is > >needed to apply to the image, it could be provided by a function? > >Anyway, now that Adrian did pixmap brushes, I think we should try to > >get an "image hose" into 1.2. That would rock. > Whee! Done already ;-> > I think that an unified paint system will be cool. Select type: color > pixmap, grayscale (a la paintbrush), bitmap (a la pencil), math formula (a > la ink). Select fade out, size (scaling of map and cache until changed), > color (if bitmap or grayscale, based in toolbox color), spacing, time speed > (airbrush >0, others 0, just move), opacity, etc, etc. Intead of multiple > tools, just one with different modes (meta brush, with a box to load and > save settings). This way, each time something new is added, all kinds have it. I like the idea. And I dont think it would be terribly difficult. Too difficult to do before the freeze of course. The seed of the idea were discussions about having a "mixing board" type dialog so that you could assign any of the input variables (mouse speed, tablet pressue, tilt, angle, direction, etc) to any of the output variables (opacity, paint mode, brush size, affine transforms of brushes, which pixmap from a hose, etc...). The SuperMetaHyperPaintTool idea would of course, be the easiest way to do that. Adrian
