Geometry Nodes in Blender 3.0 - Status Update

[DimitriBastos]

I think shareability is as important as to give users control. Also, for anyone starting out with GN, I think it’s important to have some initial path to start over. It makes me a little concerned me that GN looks, at the moment, to be target only towards the technical artist or director. I mean, some build in node groups with some common user cases would make it easier to people to start over, maybe a call for content for the 3.0 realease @dfelinto

[zorro-weaver]

I would be happy to contribute to a 3.0 asset pack. I’m sure there are many other experienced users that are willing to help too.

@LeonardSiebeneicher, how is your test expected to work? No changes were made between the store and set.

[baoyu]

@dfelinto

The Texture node is being replaced by individual Texture nodes like the Image Texture node .

This is a good one! However I think the “texture pointer” idea in Luxcore is great to have. It’s basically a method to define a procedural or image texture in its own node editor, and can be shared and used globlly. User can change it in the node editor and anywhere it’s been referenced will sync with it automatically.

[LeonardSiebeneicher]

I thought, storing happens if I unhide M1.
If the stored attribute prevailed after hiding M1, I thought it could work like a blend shape. When hiding M1, the attribute gets zero (not initialized).

I expected GN custom attributes to act like caches. Probably, current custom GN attributes are for a different purpose.

[JuanGea]

@LeonardSiebeneicher

I expected GN custom attributes to act like caches. Probably, current custom GN attributes are for a different purpose.

That’s a “variable” definition, and I also expect this in some situations, not all situations.

[zorro-weaver]

@cata_cg

Honestly, I feel that the more arguments are given here regarding Get/Set nodes (Named Attributes), the worse it would become.

Dalai asked specifically to not start a thesis-long debate over here, on this topic. We are giving him plenty of reasons to completely ignore what we say (and rightfully so? idk…)

@dfelinto, pardon me please. This page was not meant to become a discussion about the removal of get/set nodes, and I was one of those who helped push it in that direction.

However, I believe this situation is one that should be addressed soon. Please take the calls of the community into consideration.

@Laulau, if everything in blender development was settled on by a poll, blender 2.93 would still look like blender 1.0.

[HooglyBoogly]

Hi, as requested above, I moved discussion of named attribute nodes to a dedicated post. That is not because I don’t think it’s important, but because I think it’s best to respect the intention of this post.

Named attribute nodes in 3.0

The discussion of named attribute nodes in 3.0 has been going on in the update thread below. While I agree that it’s a very important topic, it’s best to respect the original goal of the thread, which was a more general status update. To that end, I hope this thread can be a place to clarify the reasoning for keeping the named attribute input and output nodes in 3.0. The Case For Named Attributes In my opinion, there are plenty of reasons to include these nodes in 3.0. Many of them have been…

[dfelinto]

There are still nodes missing the documentation in the user manual. I added a note to direct artist to the release notes for now.

[Xeofrios]

Hi, I am willing share this demo file for the new curve support 3.0. Please affirm that this can be accepted so that I can go ahead with the cleanup process. (it also uses the old point instance)

https://pasteall.org/media/e/9/e90b62784bc7da69c0cda34b8ac22d55.blend

[dfelinto]

This looks really nice, it will be great to include in the demos. (bonus if you can make them look nice when rendering).

Besides cleanup, can you please also add a README with instructions on how to explore the file, and basic credits and the corresponding CC license?

That said the new demo files should all have only the new nodes. So in your case you need to replace the Point Instance with the Distribute Points on Faces nodes.

[Xeofrios]

Thanks, I will have a look at other demo files for examples. It also needs the subdivision surface surface node which does not seem to be available right now in master.

@dfelinto

That said the new demo files should all have only the new nodes. So in your case you need to replace the Point Instance with the Distribute Points on Faces nodes.

Of course

[Orestiskon]

@DimitriBastos

It makes me a little concerned me that GN looks, at the moment, to be target only towards the technical artist or director.

Hey Dimitri,

I understand your position, but it’s a procedural system to make custom modifiers, it will be pre-requisite that there is some amount of knowledge involved. There are already a ton of tutorials and courses to get people started, and they are at a level that anyone can follow.

But it’s totally ok for many users not to use the Geometry nodes themselves, they can use assets that other people made.

It’s like making apps for your smartphone. Yes the apps need to be easy, but what about the environment where you make the apps? If that is dumbed down too much, then you will only get dumb apps.

I’m not saying to go overboard and make it super-convoluted so only people with PHD in math and computer science use it… It needs to come with a certain ease of use so people can really be creative with it, and it can be inclusive.
I think currently it’s close to having a good balance. Anyone can play with the nodes and get something out of it, while still allowing more elaborate setups to happen.

[LeonardSiebeneicher]

Maybe its useful?

It is a fractal, created from a cube. Chaining the same GN modifier is used as recursion steps for the fractal.

The GN Nodes are simple

The Blender file …
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1syYbhUM91v8PiHTJ-lB8pCieDdItZr6S/view?usp=sharing

[zorro-weaver]

I thought a torus knot generator might be useful in the example files. I’m not ready to provide the file yet, I still have some polishing and cleanup to do. What do you think?

One of my limitations is the lack of loops. If loops existed, I would be able to split every non-perfect knot into two or more links. Without them, every non-perfect knot becomes a circle.

[Xeofrios]

Maybe it will be better to provide a file with parametric surface meshes in general? The you could add a couple more interesting shapes. This kinda shows how much better fields workflow is than attributes. Imagine “noding” the equations using attribute nodes

[Ace_Dragon]

@Xeofrios

Imagine “noding” the equations using attribute nodes

I can imagine that, but we must be reminded of the fact that some people are of the technical type that would prefer to create ‘equations’ and present the resulting modifier with easy to use options (ie. in the case of a studio team or simply sharing with the community).

It does not have to be either/or in terms of whether we want to provide tools for creative thinkers or tools for analytical thinkers/TD’s. The ability to define custom attributes in the tree itself (ie. not in the modifier UI) can be added without compromising the artist friendliness of fields.

[zorro-weaver]

Sounds like a great idea! I’ll see what I can do.
Although, this might belong in a curve generator file instead, since it just generates a curve that is thickened afterwards.

@Ace_Dragon, are we seriously talking about named attributes again? Please, post this on the dedicated topic, not here. Though I agree with you, I’m not going to get pulled into that argument again.

[Xeofrios]

That’s true. I wonder if there are any surface equations for Torus knots.

[dfelinto]

Which version of Blender you are using? I would expect the Index Node noodle to be a dash there.

[HooglyBoogly]

That looks like the fields prototype if I’m not mistaken.