On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Michael Grosberg <grosberg.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think the spacing calculation does not take into effect the aspect ratio > correctly, and acts as if the longest axis is the base length from which spacing > is derived, while it should be, I believe, the short axis that affects the > spacing. this is a long standing issue, that I do plan to look into at some point. There are some complications I believe, relating to knowing the effect that dynamics are going to have on shape and size of the brush. The same issue manifests with rotation. > Also, The aspect ratio slider is not very intuitive - would it be possible > to have 0 as the default state (height = width), with, say negative numbers > for scaling height and positive for scaling width? I know it makes no sense > mathematically, but visually it would help to have the slider centered for > zero distortion and have the same length on either side for changing the aspect > ratio. This change is already commited to git. Has been for a week or so, the repository must be be behind a bit. -- --Alexia _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
