No subject

etc, they're all the same types of functionality. Sure, you can
explain to users the technical differences, but in real life the 
user picks up a tool and varies the "parameters" from there (angle, 
spacing for dots, how hard they press ie size and opacity). 
It took me a while to understand why developers don't put them in 
the same place. Even then, a unified editor is plain handy.

For some parameters, users may not want them to apply
across brushes (parameters such as size and angle. I actually get
this problem with the new Gimp brush re-sizer: I scale down a non-
generic brush, then it took me a while to understand why my generic
round-brush was 0.5 pixels when in the editor it's 5 pixels. Eh), 
but they could be given an option in either the brush editor as 
a check box or in preferences. That's about it though.

I can come up with a few mock-up proposals of my own, if you don't 
mind that is. I'm sure the rest of you are working on enough 
improvements as is. 

Another thing that would be great would be a nicer brush, texture, 
gradient (etc) management systems. Perhaps a pop-up panel where 
on the left you have the list of available brushes from one 
collection (and you can switch from collection to collection), and 
to the right a "custom" collection where you can add your most 
commonly used brushes for easy access. These are what would then
appear in the current brush selector, while the other collections 
are still accessible, but through drop-downs and other longer lists. 
This is preferable to having to wade through hundreds of brushes 
at any given time though.

Also helpful would be:
- shortcuts to resize brushes besides the automatically generated ones
- or at least shortcuts to toggle between brushes of the same type, 
but just different sizes (for example, if a watercolor brush comes 
in 5 different sizes, you can toggle between them with a shortcut)
- or shortcuts to toggle between the brushes in your current default 
collection (after you get a way to easily manage brush collections 
that is) 

For the two last ones, a way to combine them in a management system 
could be:
- Brush 1: size 1, size 2, etc.
- Brush 2: size 1, size 2, etc.
...

This would be a way around forcing the program to compute for a 
resized brush. I'm not sure how difficult something like that is 
to write, but it did take Gimp long enough to implement brush 
scaling, so I'll assume it isn't that easy to write. Basically, 
once you have arranged everything, "horizontal" toggling 
changes size, "vertical" toggling changes form. Things like these
will become very useful once Krita expands even more on its "natural
media" capabilities and people need to start managing hundreds of
brushes.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com