bulia byak schrieb:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Maximilian Albert <Anhalter42@...173...> wrote:
unfortunately I haven't yet received any response to my other emails, so I don't know if there is a potential mentor for any of them or if they are suitable for a SoC project at all.
Of course they are! Don't get discouraged by a lack of response - I guess everyone is just too busy with 0.46 rollout :)
Yeah, sorry. I know everyone is busy as hell (myself included, though for other reasons :)). I certainly didn't want to nag. Probably the lurking exam was making me too nervous.
@Johan: Special apologies to you. Of course you replied (and I was grateful for your comments) but I was anxious about possible mentors having interest, and unfortunately you can't be one of them. :)
I would love to be your mentor on the 3D box project, of course. There's lot of work still to do, and it must be done, otherwise it looks a bit unfinished. Your ideas for that are excellent, though I might add a few things, for example subdividing a box into halves/thirds/etc in one of the three planes or duplicating a box along an axis. I think you should concentrate on 3D trackball rotation first as the most complex part of it. Once it's there, the rest is easy.
I'm not 100% sure about this. Depending on what unexpected pitfalls turn up with 3D-LPEs they may be just as complex. And I haven't yet completely made up my mind whether the trackball thingy or providing 3D-LPEs (in conjunction with 3D layers, for example, as in Pierr-Luc Auclair's mockup) would be the bigger usability improvement.
But I guess you are right that it may be best to tackle the trackball stuff first. My only concern is that it may be really non-trivial to figure out how that should work with our approach to perspectives (although I have some vague ideas). And even if in the end it does work mathematically correctly, it could "feel" very weird (from a user's point of view) when applied to distorted perspectives. I'm a bit worried that I may spend a lot of time on the algorithms (abstinent from real coding) but the visible end result turns out nonsatisfying. I would have preferred to at least provide a proof of concept but I'm afraid this is not possible in my current situation. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that 3D layers and 3D-LPEs would work out pretty well and be very handy in everyday work.
Anyway, I don't know if I can find the time somewhere but since I'd love to work on it, too, I will see if I can hack up a proposal for 3D box related features. No promise, though, it will be tough. :-/ Your idea with subdividing boxes is also very good and probably quite easy to implement (how do you imagine it UI-wise?). But in the main proposal I'm probably going to focus on the big tasks, like the trackball and 3D layers (as a second and more remote goal). Perhaps I can add a separate section with small improvements that can be done if there is time in the end (otherwise they can be done after the summer since it's easy to work on them part-time only).
The tech drawing proposal is also interesting - I love and use KSEG which implements all this, and it would be interesting to see this working in Inkscape. From what I see, most if not all of these features can be implemented as LPEs and thus be sufficiently orthogonal to everything else. Still, while it's up to you of course, I think I would prefer you to continue working on the 3D box simply because there are so many loose ends there :)
Yep, that's my feeling as well. But as I said, they are much less straightforward to figure out, and I don't really want to submit a half-baken or not thoroughly thought-through proposal. I'm going to try my best but maybe it's "only" going to be tech drawing due to lack of time.
BTW, last but certainly not least many thanks to everyone for their feedback on the tech drawing stuff! Very much appreciated.
Max