Project Dogwaffle supports realistic artist
tools, paper, and media styles, custom and procedural brushes and fill
types, realtime image processing, animation, a revamped interface and it's
hopefully a lot of fun to use. 80 FX filters
Mission statement:
As with most things, it all began with a squirrel, or rather a squirrel and
a peacock, but never mind that.
Project dogwaffle is a paint program, not an image editor. If you like
creating original pretty pictures, then dogwaffle should do well. If you
want to scan images and put them on your web page, (not that there's
anything wrong with that) then dogwaffle may not be the best tool. Dogwaffle
dosn't try to be too much like the other programs - that would be a waste of
time. Dogwaffle is also meant to be fun.
Why is it called dogwaffle? Dog's love waffles...
Mininum configuration
200 mhz pentium or better (600 mhz Pentium2, AMD K7 or better
recomended) (Windows 98 Release 2 recomended). Dogwaffle has been optimised
for K6-2 and Athlon processors.
Memory requirement is undetermined at this time. I havn't tested it with
anything under 64 megs. It runs fine under 95 and 98 with 64 megs. Windows
me is a bit sluggish because of its increased memory requirements. It's not
unusual to boot me with 0 megs of free physical memory and more memory
allocated than is actually in the system - without any software running.
Reducing undo memory should help if you have problems.
Windows 95, 98, me, NT4.0, and 2000 are supported but Windows 2000 is not
currently recomended for images much above video reslolution (800x640 or
so.)
16 or 32 bit video card at 1024x768 or better. Dogwaffle will run in 15 and
24 bit modes, but they're not officially supported and some features are
disabled. (tested on Cirrus Logic, Oxigen, Viper, TNT, TNT2, G-Force2 and
FireGL cards)
DirectX 7 is needed for a few things, but it will run without it.
Service pack 3 is needed for the Field Pack plugin but not required to run
dogwaffle.
What's up with Windows 2000, you ask?
writing to an array 100 times under Windows 98 release 2. The second
array is slighty larger, but only 800x640 elements are written for each
array -- The speed should be about the same.
writing to the same arrays 100 times under Windows 2000.
The tests were done on the same machine, with an Athlon 500 and 512 megs of
ram, first under 98, then 2000. I've observed this same problem under NT and
on Intel machines as well. Hey, I'm not making this up. NT and 2000 are both
up to 5x slower than 98.
On the bright side, PD is fast enouph that even at 1/5 the speed, it's still
fairly usable on a reasonable machine.
The problem seems to exist only in writing to memory, and not reading from
memory. Interestingly, Reading from memory seems to be several dozen times
faster than writing.
Russian
English
German
French