Good example. As someone who used a dedicated eraser tool for 5 years, and Krita’s eraser toggle for 3, I can say that the way Krita handles erasers is worse for general drawing. It is more versatile, I enjoy that it is a toggle that can be used on pretty much every tool. It does have that advantage and I wouldn’t give that up. My problem is that I constantly forget which mode I’m on.
A solution I would give for that wouldn’t be a whole new tool, it would be to allow me to assign one keyboard shortcut for ‘eraser on’ and one for ‘eraser off’ so that I can quit forgetting which one I’m on constantly. yes I’m aware the icon is visible when activated, but when drawing very quickly, glancing at whether it’s on or not is detrimental and costs time.
The fisheye assistant is working fine in that thread, so it wouldn’t be a bugfix that belonged on the main bug site. (To which I’ve posted multiple dozens of bugs, those seem to get a reasonable amount of attention and resolution) The thread you respnded to was a suggestion to allow the fisheye tool to draw in fisheye perspective because right now it just draws ellipses.
I 100% agree. I moved to Krita just for that reason, as my previous program had a bug that was entirely and completely incompatible with my workflow (using a 4k screen), and the only support I got was a “We don’t know when we’ll support 4k screens”. Like, ok? Are you just going to ignore the entire new lineup of 4k Cintiqs that just came out? They supported 4k screens a month or two later because I guess too many of their big ticket supporters realized their new drawing hardware wasn’t supported and complained. By then I had already gotten used to Krita. At least here I have a small semblance of being able to direct where it goes, even if it’s only ever by brute forcing it with funding and completely bypassing the forums.
Oh absolutely, like I said I support all additions to Krita from anyone for any reason. Especially if they had the inspiration to code it entirely themselves. I see all sorts of ideas in the artist feedback forum that makes me think ‘why on earth are you adding that’, but I’d absolutely never object to them being able to do it or working on it, let along suggest they do something else I’d benefit from. Just cause it isn’t useful in my workflow doesn’t mean it’s not useful in others.
This is probably the best idea I’ve ever heard on this board, I would absolutely love something like this. A page dedicated to 2 things: Fleshing out the extent and requirements for an idea, and securing the funding for said idea. Like a bulletin board of feature request bounties that are crowd funded.
Once the idea, the plan to implement it code-wise, the extent of the initial features, the amount of funding needed to implement the idea, etc are all determined, then people can donate money to the Krita foundation for that idea. I support taking those donations ahead of time, obviously. Because the idea itself and the current funding amount is public, any programmer or group of programmers in the community can suddenly decide to implement the idea and claim the bounty. You can wait for the bounty to get higher, but you risk someone else claiming it first.
This accomplishes several things:
- It removes the vague feeling of your money going ‘toward nothing’ when donating to the program that some people report feeling.
- It will likely increase total donations overall to the project
- It is a direct and provable way to show interest in a specific idea, where people put their money where their mouth is.
- It allows the inclusion of the group of programmers that may be more of a commission-type rather than the for-fun type like the ‘passionate feature makers’ or long term contract type like the ‘core devs’.
But, this has some disadvantages:
- Taking money up-front means there has to be some sort of treasurer that will ensure the money for these bounties are not prematurely spent or handed out. So that when someone claims the bounty, they can receive their funds. This can be bad because significant wads of money in lesser-desired features can sit unused and unclaimed for a long time, leaving the donator with less money and no feature.
- Similarly, if you take money after the fact, you’re trusting the public to hold their word and actually forward the money for the work done on the feature. Lol
I honestly have no idea. It feels as though the project currently is so… ‘haphazardly’ structured? That makes it sound bad. I mean it seems messy from the outside, like it’s an amorphous blob making its way through the development process. I don’t know how most open source projects manage this sort of thing, but just some more transparency in general and some more hands-on from actual artists in the direction of the project would go a long way. Like some sort of board of artists from all walks of life and styles and workflows and hardware that can be trusted to give decent opinions on upcoming things.
The project feels like ‘an art program made by programmers who try their best to know what artists want’. I know that sounds dumb or doesn’t make sense, but I think that’s noticeably different than ‘an art program made for artists, by programmers’. An example would be GIMP, which I would classify as ‘a photoediting program made by programmers, who try their best to know what photo editors want’. Comparing Krita to GIMP is probably the closest analogy I can come up with. It’s an impressive program, it has impressive features, it has great devs, but somewhere in its development cycle it forgot to ask what its users wanted.
An organized, non-programmer-focused, artist-accessible voting and sorting functionality for features would be amazing. There are features I’ve seen go under the radar that I know would be amazing, that got shot down because the original suggester was a big dumdum with how they explained it or asked for it.
All the more reason for a more organized idea board 
Nearly everything involved in the entire process of developing Krita is hostile to artists. Other than this forum. Bugzilla, IRC, Element/Matrix chats, Phabricator.
This is a hard one. Sometimes I feel as though the devs say no to things that really, really, should be looked further into. And all it does it makes me even less likely to want to support the project.
Yeah @tiar you’ve been doing a great job from all the interactions I’ve had with you here and there over the years. No complaints here.
Edit: right after posting this I stumbled on a thread that I think sums up my frustration with Krita. The discussion wasn’t about Krita but it still hold true:
