On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Joseph Bupe wrote: > First, I do not understand which part of my suggestion will be making the > tool less interactive. All I am suggesting is to improve it so that it works > as good as in the bounded beharmonic weights demo here: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9fqm8vgdB8 . I believe our tool was > designed work like bounded beharmonic weights cage tool. Please, correct me > if I am wrong. First of all, thanks for the link. Combining Cage transform tool and N-Point transform tool would make a lot of sense, and their solution looks elegant. We don't have a skeleton-based transform tool, however, to completely redoimplement that approach. Nor do we have a developer for that, although I'd LOVE to be proven wrong :) Note. however, that what you wrote is "The Cage transform tool should transform only once with an aggregate transformation". To me this reads like "You do a lot of tweaking and you don't see the actual change untill you explicitely say so, then we apply the accumulated transformation, and you'll sit there guessing what is it that you actually did, while rendering is ongoing". Perhaps it is not what you meant to say? > Secondly, If really "we know what needs to be done" and supposing you meant > in relation to the cage transform tool, isn't it reasonable to request the > author - Michael Muré for further refinement, considering the erraticness of > code contributors? It is. We did. He's busy with other things. Alex _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
