On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Bill Skaggs <weskaggs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > David G. <allenskd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I proposed this because it will actually boost the simplicity > > of managing brushes to adapt in effects and splashes, instead > > of doing the layer and rotation "technique". ... > > I gather from this that you would like to be able to pick > an arbitrary rotation, and that simply rotating in the > direction of motion wouldn't fit your needs. There are indeed many brushes which would work best with a specific angle control -- they are mainly 'edge-effect' brushes. Anyway, I've already stated my belief that if you have directional rotation, a normative rotation angle control is necessary. > > > > > Maybe in the eyes of a developer this might be considered 'bloat'. > > It isn't a question of bloat, it's a question of keeping the user > interface as simple as possible while providing the capabilities > that are wanted. Adding an option that doesn't get used is > not harmless: it makes it harder to find the things that are > important. As an artist, you wouldn't want to have the I believe that we can reduce the number of screen-real-estate-occupying options anyway, and use an interface like the ink tool nib adjuster to simultaneously set brush normative rotation and aspect ratio. Also possibly scale -- being able to use the scroll wheel on the nib adjuster to change brush scale makes sense to me, skew -- ctrl+drag to skew, flip -- shift-click near a border to flip on that axis, and aspect -- shift-drag. (to be congruent with the rest of the GIMP, it would probably be better to put skew on shift and aspect+flip on control, since shift typically adds and control typically constrains.) As far as the backend goes, I would expect values for skew, rotate, aspect, flip, scale to be independently stored and modifyable by keyboard shortcut*, and mostly combined** into one transform matrix after a value changes. *by which I mean that they can be shortcutted, not that they are by default. ** looking at the brush code, differently scaled versions of the brush are cached. If directional rotation was implemented, we'd want to cache rotations as well, I expect. So the transform might work better in two steps. An example of this kind of interface in a raster paint program is in Pixia (Windows). > controls you need buried amongst 20 useless buttons and > sliders, would you? That's why everything like this needs > discussion and careful consideration. > > > > -- Bill > _______________________________________________ > Gimp-developer mailing list > Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer > _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
