Okay, I'll chime in here... I for one would like to see more updates with the "mesh tool." I began using when it first came out because of the amazing gradient opportunities that it created, but it is quirky and requires experimenting and even then it can provide some interesting unexpected results! What I discovered was how much better (faster) it became as I upgraded my hardware. When I first used it was so sloooooow! So again, maybe to set the record straight (as I commented in an earlier post), a poll to really find out how much this tool is used is called for.
I completly agree with you, i love what the mesh tool is supposed to be able to do but unfortunatly its not very good at it. I love CorelDRAW, i've used it since version 4 and i'm very confortable with it but i have found myself using Illustrator more frequently lately when doing illustrations because of the mesh tool, the ability to edit several objects simultaneously (excellent for blends and uniform transformations) and its distortion tools.
I think there are several tools that really need improvement and if no other, the mesh tool is my number one choice for updating and improvement. However, i think the other two options i've mentioned here would really really benefit draw also.
oops i didn't realize this was for Corel DESIGNER, i have no experience with DESIGNER but i know what i said is very true (at least from my perspective ) in Corel DRAW.
Usual methods for gradient fills are based on meshes- triangular, rectangular, distorted rectangular. People, the main purpose of these meshes is to split region to be painted. After it each cell will be painted, using three or four corner points. That's all. Sorrowful situation, when programmers reload they own task to poor users. Users have to make some absolutely odd ops (create meshes). Moreover, try to add one additional control point to existing mesh, and this mesh forces you to add a whole row an column, even if one additional control point would be enough. Method, what I name «advanced gradient fills», require only set of vertices and bounding curve. That's all. Nice and very effective thing, but it could be done better too. When I'm converting a photorealistic raster to vector, I have at least one problem. Not all contours, what present in a source, enclose something. Many of them are open arcs, and I have to create additional lines, what are absent in a source raster. But, there is a way to do without them too. This method, in fact, isn't finished now. But, some intermediate results looks rather promising. Visit http://www.smartfills.com , where you may find some vector images and some demo progs. May be, you'll change your mind about which method is really efficient. (Intel will kiss me, because this method require lots of computations). I'm afraid only, that Corel developer team won't be happy to implement methods, more efficient, than their own ones.
Andrew