Hi, 00ai99@xxxxxxxxx (2009-03-13 at 2306.16 +1030): > > Do we need the full complexity of the current image hoses for this? > > Looks like a simple linear series of brushes could be sufficient. > No and no respectively, IMO. > Don't need full image-hose functionality for this; however IMO at > least 2d sets of brushes are required for good flexibility (and then, > lets say that we can map 'pressure' to 'brush dimension 1' and > 'random' to 'brush direction 2' and this is a typical kind of user > experience. IMO this is both a comfortable and flexible setup), and > supporting 3d sets would reasonably cover the possibilities of > 'unexpected utilizations'. The current system is an array that gets chopped into dimensions. I tried to test four things at the same time, multiple layers of N*M brushes gives three, layers grouped in two sets gives the 4th. Tilt eats two by itself. The issues with GIH being rare is that you have to "load, edit, save" for every slight change, and that the interface to create those 4 groups is not so good. So it becomes cumbersome, even when you have the source file (without, it just becomes insane), and the real use decreases. If you do not have to create or tweak them, then they are great. So notice where is the problem, creation/edit, not the pipes per se. GSR _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
