Oh yeah? Then I guess the fucken command line must be a scary world to you
I could write a small bash script to replace you.
You just can't go there with inkscape https://pic8.co/sh/dfWGom.gif
You know what would work for that shit?
Blender.
*runs away giggling*
Yeah blender that's precisely what I use, DUH
So back to square 1, in a nutshell
Gimp is still lame to work at pixel level for many technical reasons inherent to how gimp is designed (the "you can't select multiple layers at once" part... Among other things... Starting with the shitty way selections work...), and inkscape is bordering on useless
It was a shitpost 'cause I've kinda stopped caring, at this point. Those are just the two that we've been stuck talking about, because that's where the conversation apparently went. But my point is that there's many options: https://conceptartempire.com/pixel-art-software/
Krita is a free and open source professional painting program aimed at digital painters, cartoonists, illustrators, and concept artists.
...
With some minor configuration changes Krita can be used for beautiful & professional pixel art.
..
Because the program is tailor-made for painters, many artists will find the workflow is very natural and easy to learn.
...
Krita is perfect for those with a traditional background in painting who want to transition into digital art. In 2015 the Krita community crowdfunded for an animation feature making it fully capable of adding motion into your pixel artwork.
...
While not as feature-rich as Photoshop or GIMP, Krita has many tools that you won’t find in programs dedicated to pixel art creation alone.
...
If you’re looking for a program that can handle both pixel art and high-resolution illustration work, and even animation, then Krita might be exactly what you’re looking for.
Personally, that's what I use for most things; especially because I have a bamboo tablet and it's just so fucking perfect with it. Again: my original comment implied you were talking about something like this: https://pic8.co/sh/Lqe7Xj.png — which is clearly not the case; making this long conversation pretty pointless. I make massive resolution pixel art in Inkscape because it's easy once you set it up to draw in a vector grid, which takes like five seconds, and I only make still images for wallpapers and things like that — which normally also include non-pixel-art-style elements.
So really, go ahead and skin the cat however you want. Doesn't really matter, but there are solutions to the problems that you propose. And if not: be the change you want to see in the world. Or not. *shrug*
>because it's easy once you set it up to draw in a vector grid, which takes like five seconds
Are you telling you're copy pasting vector squares on a grid?
Oh, apparently you can compile this yourself for free, if you want. It's supposed to be really good: https://www.aseprite.org/
>Get Aseprite for $14.99 USD
Yeah...
You see that shit? https://youtu.be/_i3Sxn2wHpw?t=248
That's called full retard
Whoah, I just saw that vid. That's an insanely retarded setup: you're not wrong. This guy has no idea how to use the simple tools he has at his disposal. He selects multiple squares to copy and paste, but then doesn't ctrl+shift+click to colorize multiple blocks at once. He doesn't even think to layer different aspects of the pictures, and immediately runs in to annoying workflow issues because of it— even on a super simple image. You're showing me a video of a literal retard, to try and make your point for you. Lol
The entire approach is just plain wrong, regardless of the fact that he's doing it like a lamer on top of that
YOU DON'T work like that, you don't align vector squares on a grid to mimic pixels, if there's one entirely wrong approach in the world it's this one, period
And that's the approach you seem to suggest here btw https://poal.co/s/technology/161578/51eca584-4e2f-412d-94c8-e1a0c68f21e9#cmnts
I hope you're suggesting something entirely different
(post is archived)