Yet Another Brush Proposal

[Matthew Woehlke]

Valerie wrote:
> To your proposals, I think as long as this applies:
> 
>>> What's the interface though?
>> Just like it is now. 
>> Basically, as you say, I'd do it architecturally
>> without making any easily noticeable changes in the user experience.
> 
> I'm fine with the idea! :) *thumbs up*
> 
> It would require some architectural changes, and for resource management
> to be implemented Before this is done (else you'd end up with a hell
> of a strange "brush" with 100 parameters :P ). So it would take a
> while even if accepted. Maybe Krita 3.0? 

Yes, thinking about it, serializing all strokes probably won't happen 
for a while. As I understand, right now we don't even persist strokes 
(well, except we *do*; paths). Nor do we have the needed interface to 
control the other variables (pen tilt, angle, pressure, etc) 
after-the-fact. This is actually something that should be added first to 
paths, then it's mostly a matter of making all tools actually generate 
paths, and figuring out how to keep the UI sane.

> (speaking of bad defaults, I'm frustrated to no end by the fact that
> the default Gimp gradients are non-editable and you have to make
> a copy to do anything with those. I mean, sure, it prevents you from
> messing them up, but what's the point if they're unusable? I 
> recommend for all Krita resources to be editable. There'd be a 
> "revert to default" option for those who mess up too much)

I'd go with PS's model... a "revert to default" seems complicated (where 
the heck do you store the defaults? In the source code?!), but a 
load/save system is just good UI. If you screw up, load the "default 
gradients" preset. If you fsck that too, well then... ;-)

(This being open source, you would of course just re-install them. Of 
course, if you used a package you probably cannot write to those anyway, 
so...)

> That said, I still vote for having all the configurable options in
> one place: in the toolbar, for two reasons:
> 1. Nothing's uglier than scattered tool options. I will spare you
> the annoyances generated for me by the fact that Gimp's tool options
> are all over the place. It's more easy to access this way too.
> 2. You compare bristles and paint translucence. For me, though,
> the "opacity" of a pencil stroke depends on how hard I press it, ie
> it's in the same place where I control "angle", "spacing", "smoothing"
> and everything else. ;)

Pigment opacity should be downplayed, if we even need it (maybe dumped 
somewhere obscure in the color picker). Think of pigment opacity as 
something that is *combined* with rate, pressure, etc, i.e. things where 
the brush would deposit less pigment. Basically, it only exists so that 
you can get mostly-translucent painting even when pressing really hard :-).

That said, I think I disagree with not having options separate, or at 
least separable. Actually, putting them next to each other is a good 
idea (if it's feasible), but I haven't put a whole lot of thought into 
actual interface layout. But in my mind, what pigment I put on the 
canvas, the instrument I use to put it there, and the way I wave around 
that instrument should all be separate and interchangeable.

> Same with paint actually. How pronounced the bristle strokes are
> could also depend on how hard I press it, since the contact surface
> would be bigger.

Well, something would be affected, yes. But... both the paint viscosity 
and brush pressure have an effect.

>> Heck, no! I want the interface to actually *change* on April 1. Every 
>> April 1 ;-). Easter egg, anyone?
> 
> The users would probably respond with an "April fool" of their own
> though by submitting dozens of bug reports on Krita being attacked
> by viruses. D:

I suppose if the community turned out to be so lacking in a sense of 
humor, I'd change it back. But I think it would be fun to do at least 
once ;-).

Speaking of easter eggs, did you know some version (95?) of MS Excel hid 
a 3d terrain simulation?

-- 
Matthew
Do you know where your towel is?