I don't know PS after CS3, I heard it had horrible performance, by the way :) After all, I did not try to imply that the brush engine is being neglected and I needed to tell you to work on it, of course not. Just statet what I think is necessary, if that's already being approached, simply take it as an confirmation for your efforts. On 07/19/2010 10:46 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > On 7/19/10, Cedric Sodhi wrote: > >> If there is something to >> work on in, especially the brushes section then it is improving the brush >> engine to give greater GENERIC flexibility > > The brush engine is already actively being worked on. You probably > missed all v2.6-v2.7 reviews. Go read them, or, better, try 2.7.1. > >> - take a commecrical brush engine as an example - I only know the PS >> one and I think that's what's needed. > > Let's get it straight: are we talking about brush engine before or after CS5? > > The Photoshop's brush engine *before* CS5 is not much different from > the current GIMP's engine. There are not so many missing things in > GIMP right now (like dual brush). I know that for sure, because I > reverse-engineered brush dynamics in ABR. > > The Photoshop's brush engine *after* CS5 -- now, that's a whole > different thing, because Adobe is now trying to bite a piece of the > pie that used to belong to Corel, SAI et al. The GIMP team seems to > have agreed that Krita and MyPaint are doing a damn great job there > already, so they [GIMP team] aren't going to do natural brushes or > media simulation > > Alexandre Prokoudine > http://libregraphicsworld.org > _______________________________________________ > 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
