Re: What would be a better set of default resources?

[Alexia Death <alexiadeath@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Martin Nordholts <enselic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 07/20/2009 10:29 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
>
>>   * Add larger variants of the circle and fuzzy circle
>>     brushes, say 50, 100, 250 and 500 px
>
> The prerequisite for this is GIMP not playing a dying turtle that
> climbs up to Kilimanjaro top while drawing with a 200+ px brush :)

On my computer, painting with a 500px brush on an A4 has acceptable
performance. I don't think performance problems should keep us from
adding better resources. It would of course be nice if someone looked
into what exactly what is slow and if it would be easy to improve
performance.

Ive actually looked at the process with a profiler and simply applying the brush on canvas is what eats resources. With gegl projection/paint core and only rendering at relevant zoom level it perhaps can be improved, but not really as is... My objection to having a 500px brus in the resources is however, that it is a workaround ofr a GUI ineficency and I do not like it at all. IMHO there should not be two brushes of the same shape, instead, the tool UI should allow for  selecting the size from a preset set of scale results that could be very well 50, 100, 250 and 500 px for all brushes.

--Alexia

PS: Sorry Martin for spam.
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer