(If it would be better to continue the thread in the original topic, please let me know and I can repost this there, I'm not sure about resurrecting a 9 year old thread.)
https://forum.tvpaint.com/viewtopic.php ... ow+opacity
When I first started using TVpaint, looking into remaking PS brushes and understanding the similarities, I read things on the forum to understand better and came across this kind of information and just took it at face value that opacity in TVpaint is actually Flow in other software, which I've always found less useful to have a pressure control on personally. In that thread above you can find the following quote from Elodie talking about the issue
In other software, Opacity is named "Flow" and Power is named "Opacity".
So as primarily an animator and not needed to paint a ton I moved on and got used to Tvpaint's brush system, which for drawing IS fantastic, so I never really thought of it until more recently. In the last year and a bit I needed to use painting more, and having gotten so used to my TVpaint workflow, going back to other programs was a chore. I tried using TVpaint for painting and again dived into understanding the engine and trying to mimic what I'm used to getting in other programs. I think now after doing a lot of testing of it's capabilities one of the reasons it feels a bit less intuitive at times and feels perhaps less "capable" to paint in TVpaint coming from other programs(setting aside the 8 bit color limit) is the lack of Opacity control linked to Pen pressure. (Also for the record im not saying it's terrible or anything, but I think if this could change it would be a massive addition)
Maybe other people could chime in, and I'm very open to be corrected, but I think the above quote is wrong regarding comparing Tvpaint's Opacity and Power, and other programs Opacity and Flow/Density etc. In my testing in other programs, Power in TVPaint definitely behaves as flow does in those programs, and having a pressure control with opacity is very noteworthy. One reason, is having opacity set to Pen Pressure(as opposed to flow) allows you to build up gradients in a single continuous brush stroke with increased pressure in a way that is very useful and intuitive in these other programs. The only comparable thing I've found in Tvpaint is using a custom brush set to Alpha Max, but this seems to have a less fine tuned pressure curve and the build up on say a hard round brush is harder to control in my testing.
I also mainly worked with custom brushes as I thought after a while due to less parameters/customization that the other brush categories were only simpler versions of what you could do with Custom brushes. However, after coming across a thread that talked about the limit of 8 bit software and rounding errors and why the other brush modes (air brush, water etc.) exist, I took another look at what they can do. After using them more, it's most evident with the Air Brush, but I've also been pleasantly surprised at the water brush. It is quite capable once you really play with the settings and adjust them as you work, one of which is in adjusting opacity with it and the way the Power interacts with the build up of the edge/profile, and I feel like if you could adjust the Opacity with pressure on this it would be fantastic.
So in short my question related to the testing in that other thread: is it a limit that unless there is major rework to the brush engine in TVpaint, having an Opacity Pressure connection is impossible? Or is it just buggy the way Opacity and Power interact, which seemed to be what that thread was saying, and there could potentially be a solution?
Edit:
Here are some visual aids to the point.
A good video from CTRL+PAINT with the difference between OPACITY and FLOW in photoshop.
A video I made hopefully demonstrating, that while there are some workarounds that approximate an Opacity/Pressure control, they still leave something to be desired as in the original post. Also that the explanation given in the past that Power in TVpaint is Opacity in other programs, I believe is incorrect(again glad to be corrected). To sum up again the point of the original post is simply asking if this is something that can be added or not in the current engine. If not, hopefully in the future as I think it would be a great addition.