<div dir="ltr"><div><div></div><div>Does this sum up everything? <br>The original issue we are trying to solve here that Windows users are complaining about brushes being slow and unresponsive. A solution was put into place to modify the brushes to make them responsive and more usable. This solution introduced a new issue with Linux users not wanting to make this quality compromise. We have two concerns that need to be addressed.<br><br></div><div>1. Brushes on Windows are slow and unresponsive<br></div><div>2. Linux users do not want their brushes changed<br></div><div> <br></div><div><br></div><div>These are the current solutions that have been presented<br>1. Give Windows and Linux users a separate set of brushes by default<br></div><div>2. Include brushes that will work for Linux. And also include brushes that work for Windows (add both sets)<br></div><div>3. Reduce the amount of existing brushes, and then provider separate bundles<br></div><div><br></div><div></div><div><br></div><div>The cleanest solution seems to be choice 1. This performance issue is not going away for Windows. I think the other two solutions create complexity for people using Krita. Based off my testing and the changes I made while using Windows, the quality does have to degrade slightly for the brushes to be usable on Windows. Brushes have to be usable though, they cannot remain how they were on Windows. <br><br></div><div>thoughts?</div><div>Scott<br></div><div></div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Timothée Giet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:animtim@gmail.com" target="_blank">animtim@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Yes, I prefer very much to add new
preset (= different name and icons) that are specifically
optimized for speed,<br>
rather than changing existing ones making their result different.<br>
And using the resource bundle to do that when it's ready is a good
idea.<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 28/02/2015 14:20, Wolthera a écrit :<br>
</div><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">It was not a 100% revert.</p>
<p dir="ltr">However, I am happy we have a resource bundle system
that's nearly done, which means we can start subdividing the
existing presets into bundles, and then have a pack named
default-pack-optimised and default-pack-quality. Then we have
optimised delivered with windows, and quality with linux.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This is not about just krita being buggy, but also
about getting the best experience for both sides. Going forward
and improving as much as we can.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Op 28 feb. 2015 14:10 schreef "Scott
Petrovic" <<a href="mailto:scottpetrovic@gmail.com" target="_blank">scottpetrovic@gmail.com</a>>:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Almost 90% of all Krita users are on Windows (Google
Analytics tells me this), so everything should really be
tested heavily on that OS before we do any big changes
that could impact performance. Was this commit just 100%
reverts? Some of the original presets were unusable on
Windows - which is why there were so many complaints with
the 2.9 release. I tested each brush preset on Windows to
make sure they were responsive with still achieving the
highest quality I could get. The smudge brushes were by
far the worst, but some of the pixel brushes were quite
sluggish and frustrating to use as well. We cannot ignore
the majority of our user base. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
I think the lesson learned is that there is a big
performance difference between Linux and Windows brushes -
and we need to be aware of them and test accordingly. There
were also additional properties added to the brush engine
settings in 2.9, so I am sure that played a role with how
they are performing.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Having slow default brushes makes the entire
application look bad.If there are certain brushes that do
not work well on Windows, but 'have' to have a certain
quality, it might be best to remove those with the default
installation. A separate "enhanced linux" brush pack might
need to be available separately for linux users.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Scott</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 5:50 AM,
Timothée Giet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:animtim@gmail.com" target="_blank">animtim@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>I didn't test in 2.9 on windows, but I had
occasions to test them on pevious versions and they
worked fine, no real difference with linux, and
nothing of what I changed since then should made
them slower. If some people have new performance
issues that must be some regressions, so changing
presets is not the best way to fix this.<br>
<br>
I made some comparative tests to check before/after
and restored presets where the quality of the
intended line suffer from the changed settings,
wether it was different softness, different line
continuity, or very different size...<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 28/02/2015 11:37, Boudewijn Rempt a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Should we have a different set on Windows and
on Linux then? Or did you test these presets on
Windows, too? <br>
<br>
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Timothée Giet wrote: <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Krita mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:kimageshop@kde.org">kimageshop@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>