Scratch 2.0 have did radial gradient better because of good color transition and it cover most of the shape very well. I find to be one of my most favorite paint feature in Scratch and what it made my artwork look very good. Now, Scratch 3.0, well, i want you to look at the picture and tell me what you think:


Scratch 2.0 radial gradient for comparison:


Doesn't it look right? That what i thought. One of the thing that i don't really like about Scratch 3.0 is radial gradient. I have found problems what cause radial gradient to look wrong. The color transition is too small, as you can see in this picture, it has a lot of yellow, and then it goes from yellow, to orange, to red very quickly, and this is what it cause radial gradient to look wrong. This cause most of scratchers (including myself) to stop using radial gradient because of how awkward it look.

Another problem with radial gradient is that it doesn't seems to stretch like Scratch 2.0 did. If you were to draw a rectangle shape in Scratch and apply a radial gradient into it, in 2.0, the gradient would stretch to cover most of the shape. In 3.0, it barely covered the shape, because of really small transition, not only that, but because it doesn't really stretch to fit most of the shape.

I have discovered that it work like Scratch 1.4 did, but it was a long time ago and this was when it has stricter project limit, no vector mode, etc, and i feel like Scratch 2.0 radial gradient is an improved version of Scratch 1.4. Why revert back to how Scratch 1.4 radial gradient look like when it looked way better in Scratch 2.0?

I don't really like radial gradient in 3.0, and i often use radial gradient for my artwork, and it is one of my most favorite paint feature in Scratch. Please, bring back the old radial gradient, it looked way better and now it's useless because of how awkward the current radial gradient look. The reason why Scratch 2.0 did radial gradient better, as i already mentioned is because of good color transition and the fact it stretch to fit the shape.

How to improve radial gradients:

- Make the color transition go from primary color to secondary color as slow as it did in Scratch 2.0. (It doesn't go from red, to orange, to yellow very quickly for example.)
- Make the radial gradient stretch when you stretch a square into a rectangle (for example).
- Add an option to toggle Scratch 1.4/3.0 and Scratch 2.0 radial gradient*

* While the color transition is small, it doesn't really mean it's completely useless, and it does have some uses which i can't really imagine, if i asked to bring back the old radial gradient, basically how radial gradient worked in Scratch 2.0, my topic would be mixed with being agreed and being disagreed. There should be an option to toggle 1.4/3.0 radial gradient and 2.0 radial gradient, a button to toggle will appear if you select radial gradient.

Scratch Team, if you bring back the old radial gradient, scratchers will start to use radial gradient again and appreciate the paint editor more. Radial gradient got ruined by awkward color transition, and not covering and stretching to fit the shape, and i would really love and would love Scratch 3.0 more if you bring back Scratch 2.0 radial gradient, or at least give an option to toggle them. I've been using radial gradients and i have loved this feature so much.

If you agree or disagree with my post, please include what you're agreeing/disagreeing and include why you are agreeing or disagreeing. I like to hear your opinions that are informative.

Bump.

Would it be possible to put up a picture of the radial gradient from Scratch 2.0 so we can see a side-by-side comparison?

Za-Chary wrote:

Would it be possible to put up a picture of the radial gradient from Scratch 2.0 so we can see a side-by-side comparison?

Here it is, Scratch 2.0 radial gradient:


I'm going to add to my original post later.

Woh, okay, I like this idea, but maybe make it a toggle able or something… if not, I still support!

No support. The radial gradient in 2.0 was a diagonal gradient, which is in 3.0. Actual radial gradients are like the 3.0 gradient

Bump.

Bump.

Bump

Bump.

BUMP

VFDan wrote:

No support. The radial gradient in 2.0 was a diagonal gradient, which is in 3.0. Actual radial gradients are like the 3.0 gradient

No support as per above.