Well, going into the semantics on how various aspects of a feature can go from first class to second class (and visa versa) would open a can of worms that would no doubt bury any feedback that is actually useful for the developers (since I do not think we will be able to come to a consensus at all).
There are a subgroup of users out there who think that FOSS should not even try to innovate or do anything differently at all (as the BF is doing with fields), they’d rather the world of FOSS just shamelessly carbon-copy everything produced by commercial vendors (without even considering if there is a better way of doing things). I am all for the inclusion of a set of lower-level nodes for power users and even TD’s, which I think should provide a good balance that satisfies those who tend to take a more analytical and/or technical approach to making 3D worlds.
Hopefully we get the chance to talk a bit about this.
I have to say that I understand Dalai’s perspective as well. It’s important (and hard) to take decisions and stick with them (even when everyone is not happy about it) and work things out on the go. Otherwise you end up switching directions with every little whisper.
I just hope that he would be willing to ease the growing pains of the project, that tends to be higher at this early stage.
Yeah, I think it must be kinda hard to take the people on this forum too serious after the whole drama with the dashed lines. There is lots of bikeshedding here when it comes to ui stuff; but imo this issue is actually kinda serious
I just don’t get the whole “maybe on 3.1” thing. The shareability seems like an ideal geared towards helping users, both hardcore users and beginners on GN. What would be even worst in order to help people than making people relearn how to do things again in a short period of time?
Can the design be iterated again without breaking people knowledge/tutorials/current files, etc?
I think we should not antagonize people this way. I’m pretty sure Dalai isn’t a deus ex machina under BF and probably the Team spends lots of time discussing the path of Geometry Nodes. I want to trust the team, that most of time is making good calls on Blender project. My only concern here is about the user experience of relearn (again) how to do things. I think it’s a really valid concern.
At this point, I’m reapeating myself. Not a popular opinion but I think all opinions matters.
To be honest, I’m much more concerned about the aparent lack of quick start node groups on Blender 3.0. Much more than the whole get/set thing. Blender is becoming more and more used on all industries, and from 2.8 and beyond is becoming much more friendly and easier to use. I don’t get the “get good” mindset wich Geometry Nodes, which is completely opposite of the whole Blender phylosophy post 2.8.
3.0 is indeed a great opportunity and milestone to make Blender even more robust on the market, but GN will maintain its position of a tool geared towards technical artists and directors without node groups shipped. Most users don’t want to deal with math and vectors, people want easy to use nodes, with visual feedback of what they want to archieve. Of course, low level nodes are important, but it is important to make people want to use a system without the need of becoming a technical artist in the process. What I can already experience based on my talking with Blender users: GN is plain hard even with Fields, and it would be good to have more people who aren’t technical 3D artists involved with GN. A simple set of node group shipped would do wonders to make people happy and even with the desire to learn more it they can already create cool things first.
@BD3D It won’t matter that much if these nodes aren’t shipped with Blender IMHO.
I kinda of understand that, but Blender is not a procedural software. So, GN looks like a whole different thing inside another thing… if that makes sense. In terms of design phylosophy, that’s the whole point of the mentioned shareability. Just give some nodes to people by default, already inside Blender. That’s all.
Solve basic needs, make people want more, people will download and buy more node groups and add-ons. But first, give a few and basic node groups who will solve basic needs within the DCC.
Right now, I see this way:
Blender is easy, GN is Hard, so let’s make even harder letting only low level nodes populate an already complicated system.
@DimitriBastos That is a good idea. It have already materialize in this form (see link, not finish), although I don’t think there is GN in the Bundle yet.
As for accessibility, Shader Node can already be quite hard to grasp if one want to build something more complex (See Nodevember).
Blender is and will stay a professional tools.
Turning the default Cube to something like Agent 327 or Sprite Fright will always be hard
Edit :
@DimitriBastos One thing I could add. Since 2-3 years there is a Huge boom of Blender tutorial on Youtube and others platform. Also Blender Market (and others free, see Baking Addon by Daniel) are making Blender quite ‘‘newbe-friendly’’ !
This is probable the most strongest point of Blender (and I know also for Unity)… Having this Huge community that can help you resolve problem and find solution super quick.
Also I’m sure with the Asset Browser there will be plenty of free and paid Asset bundle available in the future.
Sorry if this is off-topic, will stop right here. Just to finish my thought, It sure is hard. But Shaders have a Principled BSDF, for instance, and GN currently doesn’t have an easy to use node group even for the most basic needs.
And GN can be as professional as it needs to be, and even more, without alienate everyone who isn’t a technical 3D professional and let all the rest hoping for the first group to share something that the second group could finally use. Otherwise it will just be a “get good” situation, which doesn’t fit the Blender phylosophy in my opinion.
The Team even knows that the Asset Browser could be used on this matter, as it was discussed before on official blog posts, I just think this should be a 3.0 priority specially due to its importance for Blender as a milestone release.
EDIT: @fr002 , I agree with everything you said, but I just think that either way Geometry Nodes could benefit of having a few assets bundled on 3.0 release in order to help people out. I see and completely understand the community aspect. In fact, It was the first thing that make me use Blender in the past. It doesn’t change the fact that it would be a welcoming boost of usability in order to make people more confortable in using Geometry Nodes.
I also think this is important, and I’m excited to bundle some node groups with Blender. However, at this point it’s definitely not happening for 3.0, for two reasons:
The basic asset browser work is still finishing up, and it doesn’t support node groups as well as we would need yet.
There isn’t enough time for it given the time constraints of finishing up the fields conversion.
So hopefully this could be an area of focus for 3.1, we’ll see.
Fair enough, @HooglyBoogly and thank you very much for your input. I’m sorry if this was already stated before on another post, I was just trying to give some constructive feedback from another point of view.
I’m looking foward to see how this evolves in 3.1.
Is it possible to convert a field to a normal data ? i didnt get the whole concept of field so im asking, in this simple example, how can i randomize the z location ?
