[Forkjulle]

I've just reverted to 2.6 because, while I MUCH prefer the single window mode, 2.6 has better performance in key areas for me.

1. 2.6 increases brush scale a lot quick and more intuitively than 2.8. If I create a shortcut for "increase brush scale more" in 2.6, I can increase my brush scale a lot quicker than in 2.8 (where I need to drag a slider beyond its end point). On an A4 page, at 300DPI, quickly increasing my brush size takes too long in 2.8. The increments are simply too small.

2. The pre-selection line, in 2.8 is too thick. It's the same line / thickness as when using the freehand tool. Why does it need to be so thick?

3. If I use the rectangle select tool, in 2.8, and then add / subtract areas from the selection, it does a weird confusing thing by creating a strange new little block where the cursor is, which is off-putting.

There are other features which are superior to 2.6, but the above ones are core to my needs.

Pity.

[frank]

 Forkjulle, on 15 May 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

I've just reverted to 2.6 because, while I MUCH prefer the single window mode, 2.6 has better performance in key areas for me.

1. 2.6 increases brush scale a lot quick and more intuitively than 2.8. If I create a shortcut for "increase brush scale more" in 2.6, I can increase my brush scale a lot quicker than in 2.8 (where I need to drag a slider beyond its end point). On an A4 page, at 300DPI, quickly increasing my brush size takes too long in 2.8. The increments are simply too small.

2. The pre-selection line, in 2.8 is too thick. It's the same line / thickness as when using the freehand tool. Why does it need to be so thick?

3. If I use the rectangle select tool, in 2.8, and then add / subtract areas from the selection, it does a weird confusing thing by creating a strange new little block where the cursor is, which is off-putting.

There are other features which are superior to 2.6, but the above ones are core to my needs.

Pity.

as this is my first post, i must start by saying thank you for Gimp!

i reverted to 2.6 for most of these (above), plus, i really find it time consuming when i load a png and i do not want to have the gimp native format, then i must export, then again extra popups, warnings... just too messy. in 2.6 it just saved it back to the original filename. I find it hard to understand why it had to be changed when it worked rather well in 2.6.

it's ok to have a native format, but this way i end up having two files in subversion, and sometimes i just forget exporting to png and have to rebuild release.

hopefully, you guys are putting back this old save/load style behind some settings, so i could enjoy the single window mode.

thanks for your attention,
frank

[Peltzi]

 frank, on 12 June 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

i reverted to 2.6 for most of these (above), plus, i really find it time consuming when i load a png and i do not want to have the gimp native format, then i must export, then again extra popups, warnings... just too messy. in 2.6 it just saved it back to the original filename. I find it hard to understand why it had to be changed when it worked rather well in 2.6.

it's ok to have a native format, but this way i end up having two files in subversion, and sometimes i just forget exporting to png and have to rebuild release.

hopefully, you guys are putting back this old save/load style behind some settings, so i could enjoy the single window mode.

thanks for your attention,
frank

I just have to comment on this. Hit CTRL-S to save in .xcf, hit CTRL-E to overwrite the previous .png file. It takes no extra time whatsoever.

CTRL-E corresponds the Overwrite <previous filename> option in the File menu and essentially does what you wanted without complicating your project saves.

This post has been edited by Peltzi: 18 June 2012 - 02:27 PM