They aren’t interested in, say, digitally duplicating the viscosity of oil paint, or the fluid flow of watercolor. They seem to have decided, through painful experience as an open source project, that natural materials simulation is slow and hard to do. But we do listen, and for the past years we’ve let you vote for which features you would find most useful, while still keeping the direction of Krita as a whole in our hands. Gone is real-world materials as an inspiration, and in are our users as inspiration: we won’t let you dictate what Krita can do, or how Krita lets you do stuff, UX design isn’t something that can be created by voting. From commentary on their new vision statement:įinally, the last paragraph got almost completely rewritten. The core devs assured that they are committed to “painting”, however that commitment is to digital painting. Some discussion in their Developer forum ensued, with someone worrying that Krita might not be committed to “painting” anymore. I came across an Update to Krita’s Vision of the future of their project. Particularly as I’m a computer programmer and wondering whether or not it’s worth contributing to their project. I spent some time reading the Krita forums, to understand whether that community is something I would want to stick with long term. I’m still figuring out what tablets do or don’t work on Windows 10, etc. Pardon if I haven’t had time to really spend on any particular art package, such as Krita specifically. My head is exploding from all the digital media research I’ve been doing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |