• add a "reverse gradient" option
  
• add stroke in "line" mode for cleaner results
  
• possibly split the stroke/fill choices in two different menu entries
  

(06-23-2018, 01:40 PM)Espermaschine Wrote: I think my idea was to basically get rid of 'Background Fill' and 'Layer Name' (and perhaps 'Opacity' if a Layer Group is possible).
Add a 'Reverse Gradient Option'.
Change 'Layers' to 'Multiple' or 'Layer Group'.

Plus, it would be nice to improve on the confusion i had with the 'Generate Intermediate Paths' script and the z-order.
Just call it Top and Bottom path instead of Beginning and End.
That would make it more intuitive.



EDIT:
i was also able to replicate the bug i was experiencing

• Background fill is necessary in many cases (even if I could make transparency the default)
  
• Layer name maybe an unnecessary complexity
  
• A frequent use case of te script is animations. "Beginning" and "End" refer to the time flow in the animation, which is bottom to top in the layer stack. This is why layers/paths are generated in that order.
  
• Reverse gradient will be included
  
• Having the option to put the layers in a group is a good idea but I keep the other two options (Single and Multliple) because animations require the layers to be at the top level.
  
• Thanks for the bug report. Replicated and fixed. The code was setting the FG color for the fill before creating the layer, so if you want the layer background with the FG color you get the same color as what you are going to fill the selection with.
  
  

(06-23-2018, 05:00 PM)Ofnuts Wrote:

• A frequent use case of te script is animations. "Beginning" and "End" refer to the time flow in the animation, which is bottom to top in the layer stack. This is why layers/paths are generated in that order.

(06-23-2018, 05:08 PM)Espermaschine Wrote:

(06-23-2018, 05:00 PM)Ofnuts Wrote:

• A frequent use case of te script is animations. "Beginning" and "End" refer to the time flow in the animation, which is bottom to top in the layer stack. This is why layers/paths are generated in that order.
  

I still cant wrap my head around the concept.

So if i want to make 3D text, i start with the base text and then downscale for the perspective extrusion.
Which of the paths is the beginning and which is the end ?

Is the smaller one the beginning, because you build a "house" from the ground up and not down from the roof to the base ?

Another confusing thing about the intermediate paths script is when you call it up for the first time, there is only an option for the end path.
Only when you call it up a second time there will also be an option for the beginning path.

• The 3D must be generated back-to-front, in other words,"front" is the last layer produced, at the top of the Layers stack.
  
• Layers are generated by stroke-fill in the same stack order as the paths, so the "front" path should be the top one.
  
• The paths are also generated bottom to top in the path stack, this means that starting from the paths in path-inbetweener, the "begin" path is the one in the back/at the bottom.
  
• When one defines a Python plugin where the first argument is a path, this argument is implicitly taken as the active path when the script is called. So if you call path-inbetweener by right-clicking on a path in the Paths lists that path is implicitly the "Begin" one so the one you have to enter is the one for the end/top/front. When you replay the script there is no implicit argument so you are able to enter both paths.
  

• bottom=begin=back (mnemonic: the three "B"s)
  
• top=end=front
  
  

(06-23-2018, 07:52 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: When one defines a Python plugin where the first argument is a path, this argument is implicitly taken as the active path when the script is called. So if you call path-inbetweener by right-clicking on a path in the Paths lists that path is implicitly the "Begin" one so the one you have to enter is the one for the end/top/front. When you replay the script there is no implicit argument so you are able to enter both paths.

You could be making things harder than they are

(06-23-2018, 08:08 PM)Espermaschine Wrote: coder versus artist perspective
aka user friendliness

(06-30-2018, 07:15 PM)Espermaschine Wrote: @ofnuts, as far as i can tell you havent updated the script yet, have you ?

Even if you dont want to update the interface, it would be nice to have the bug fixed, i posted.