Hi, I'm the Google SoC student working on the GIMP vector layers project, and I'd like to invite everyone who feels like it to give them a go.

I've recently finished implementing the saving and loading of these layers to the GIMP's XCF files, so they are in a usable state. I would very much like any constructive feedback you have, especially with regards to how you would like the stroke / fill dialog to behave. This dialog is my next focus, as although it works now, it's not anywhere near ideal.

You can find the source code on the soc-2006-vector-layers branch of the GIMP CVS. To create a vector layer, right click on a path in the paths dialog and select "Path to vector layer". This acts like a regular layer except that it auto-updates to reflect changes in the path it was made from and its stroke and fill settings. To change colours and such, right click on the layer in the layers dialog and select "Fill / Stroke".

Vector layers are always edited by changing the path they are based on, so if you go do other stuff you need to manually double-click the path. I am thinking of automating this when you double-click the vector layer, but I might reserve that for opening the stroke / fill options instead.

Anyways, try it out, have fun, and make sure to give feedback if you have any at all. =)

Thank you, Hendrik Boom

On 14/08/06, David Gowers wrote:

While the fill/stroke dialog could stand some improvement, I think that being able to duplicate vector layers properly is more important for usability; currently any duplicates behave like ordinary pixel-based layers, therefore do not keep up to date with changes to their base vector.

I am not sure what behaviour would be most useful here, a shallow copy or a deep copy. A shallow copy would let you easily create multiple vector layers based on the same path, which would easily allow for neat effects if different stroke widths / styles were used, but a deep copy might also be useful for making sure the layers could be changed seperately.

Come to think of it, in my mind the shallow copy would seem to be the most intuitive. However, that could just be me. =)

I suggest delaying updating the vector layers until the user releases the mouse button as they edit the base path; Editing paths used by vector layers is currently rather sluggish.

That is something that I am considering. I have not personally had experience using this on a slower system.

While presently vector layers are useful as a drawing tool, they would approach the usefulness of normal layers if they could be moved. As far as I understand, information about any necessary transformations can be stored in the form of a single transformation matrix (as a parasite?)

The way I am currently thinking of implementing transformations is by just applying the transformations to the original path instead. It seems to me that this would be most intuitive in that it makes sure that the vector layer always corresponds to the position of the path it is based on. More complicated things, such as having multiple vector layers based on the same path but in different places, may be considered in the future.

Thank you very much for the input, Hendrik Boom

On 16/08/06, Grant Gardner wrote:

Henk,

First off I will say that I am so grateful someone finally took on the challenge of vector layers in gimp. That has been the one thing preventing me from completely switching to gimp from paint shop pro in my 3D model work. Major props, man.

Thanks!

Now, crits and comments. I agree that the stroke/fill dialog needs work, most especially in where it can be found accessed. I would prefer seeing in the right-click menu under layers--maybe that's just me. Right now its really hard to find--had to re-read your post a few times to find it. However, apart from that, I think it definitely has good functionality.

That's a good point, I'll look into adding it to that menu.

I would also agree with David Bowers about the update post-mouse release. Right now, it's little too sluggish. If the updated stroke happened faster, i don't think I would mind as much and even as it is right now I wouldn't complain. But, if we're looking for "perfect" I would say have it update really fast rather than after the mouse button release.

Having it update really fast could cause it to run very slowly on slower computers. At this point I am considering making it update only on mouse release.

Finally, I would suggest trying to find a way to link the visibility of the path with the visibility of the vector layer. Right now, if I want to get rid of the path from my view, I have to perform some kind of black magic of turning on/off the visibility of both the vector layer and the path in some particular combination. I would find it easier to have the one linked to the other so that when I toggle the visibilty of the vector layer, it blanks everything associated with it. Terrible? No, but it does slow down the workflow to have to constantly be switching back to the path dialog to turn the darn thing on and off. More I'm thinking about this when paint 3D model textures and I want to look at the overall texture with and without vector elements.

This hasn't been a problem for me so far, as I usually have paths invisible (as they automatically show while they are being editted), but I can see that that could be an issue for many people. However, having the path go invisible when the vector layer does might raise issues when you have more than one vector layer attached to a single path. It would be tricky to come up with a policy for that sort of behaviour which would be both useful and intuitive, but if you can think of something or give more information about the specific troubles it gives you, I would appreciate you letting me know. =)

Overall: 8/10 If this was part of the Gimp 2.4 release (as is) I would completely dump Paint Shop Pro.

I can't tell you how glad it makes me to see my work appreciated, thanks!

Then I'd have only one reason to have my comp dual booting XP and FC5--my modeling app.

If you haven't already, check out blender. Its user interface is a little bit of a hurdle if you aren't used to it, but it is much more powerful than it looks initially.
Hendrik Boom

On 17/08/06, David Gowers wrote:

On 8/17/06, Henk Boom wrote:

While presently vector layers are useful as a drawing tool, they would approach the usefulness of normal layers if they could be moved. As far

as I

understand, information about any necessary transformations can be

stored in

the form of a single transformation matrix (as a parasite?)

The way I am currently thinking of implementing transformations is by just applying the transformations to the original path instead. It seems to me that this would be most intuitive in that it makes sure that the vector layer always corresponds to the position of the path it is based on.

Note also though, that implementing that scheme would mean transforming one vector layer would effect any other layers using that path.. I don't know how to resolve that.

That is true, and as a result the usefulness of having multiple vector layers attached to a path would be limited to creating complex stroke patterns. However, I feel the confusion caused by having vector layers that do not line up with their paths would be too much.

I do realize how independently movable layers would be useful. For example, one could have one path representing a symbol, and show multiple vector layers in different positions around the image rendering that symbol. This would let you easily modify the symbol in one place and have the changes be reflected everywhere. This level of functionality is getting pretty high level though, (and even in dedicated vector programs like inkscape there are a couple of issues with these "clones") and it is currently a much higher priority to get vector layers fully working and integrated into the gimp.

Thank you again for your continued input, Hendrik Boom

On 17/08/06, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

Henk, I have a couple of basic questions that are probably extraordinarily silly.

1. Is it possible (or will be possible) to have multiple paths in a vector layer?

It is not possible, and there are currently no plans to change that. This possibility was discussed at the beginning of my project, and the big reason to stick with one shape per layer was simplicity. If we had multiple shapes in a layer, the UI would have to be extended somehow to allow for changing the order of the shapes, which might be confusing to the user. With the current system, however, you just reorder the layers as normal.

2. Will paths and vector layers be different entities in the future?

Paths are by their nature the ideal element for vector layers. Currently it has been decided that paths should remain paths when being used by a vector layer, but as above, something may come up which might change our minds.

3. If so, when it comes to clipping paths, will it be implemented via paths or vector layers? Is there a particular plan for it in XCF2, since it most likely won't happen for XCF?

I don't have the knowledge to answer that question, sorry. =(

Thanks for the feedback, Henk Boom

Alexandre

On 24/08/06, graffoo wrote:

Wooow man! I'm sooooooo happy that vector layers are coming in Gimp. But since I don't know how to compile it under winxp I have a question about fill. Can it be also a gradient fill? I haven't seen a simple screenshot of your work, just waitin for it to be in next major gimp release, like healing brush...

I forgot to link to my site, where I have some shots of this up and running: http://lunarcrisis.pooq.com/Gimp/SoC2006Log The stuff near the bottom is newest.

Currently only solid fills work, (okay, patterns __sort_of__ work, you just can't choose the pattern effectively) though I would like to have gradients/patterns supported as well. Also, it turns out that vector layers will probably not make it into 2.4, although they will most likely be waiting to go into 2.6.

Thanks, Henk Boom

On 28/08/06, jernej@ena.si wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2006, 9:46:32, Henk Boom wrote: PaintShopPro displays vector shapes very similarly to layer groups in it's layers window (it uses a tree display for layers), and it isn't confusing at all.

Sounds reasonable, but the GIMP doesn't have a tree view yet. =P

Hendrik Boom