No, I completely missed those, but I wasn’t able to follow development until recently, so I would just skim through the two big GeoNodes threads. And from the users reactions I got the impression that changes were completely out of the blue (more of a case with dashed lines).
But looking at the replies in those two threads it seems that people still wanted to use names attributes with the fields system, also @jacqueslucke summed up the problem pretty well and even suggested a solution in this post:
But the changes still went through, so communication didn’t work out in this case.
I think you should create a new thread with 2 polls for both controversial decisions… set/get attributes and dashed noodles. This way the votes are easily accessible for anyone to vote on or to see the results of, without having to dig through hundreds of posts in this thread. The community should get a voice on these recent changes and a poll would make it clear what the majority want.
I’ve been trying do what you show here in many different ways with vector math before. Your tree is much nice and more concise. However, I don’t quite understand what Attribute capture does and why if I plug the geometry directly to mesh to points node, the rotation is different. Isn’t the normal part of the original geometry already?
Another point, if trying to align normals to the faces of instances, it isn’t working at the moment. Shouldn’t the new normals get picked up from the instances?
Is there a way to adjust the position the mesh, e.g. slide instance points across the U or V directions?
What would be a way to exclude certain instances?
Also, really important to workflows with many objects, is Fast Boolean coming to Geometry Nodes? The Exact boolean is very slow in my workflows so I rarely use it and it would be a big hurdle if it doesn’t exist in geometry nodes.
In fact the reset one is not needed if you want the offset from the 0,0,0 that an object can have to be respected, but the other two, yes, that’s the path
I’m trying the 3.0 build from yesterday. I managed to align the Y axis of the instanced object to the curve tangent, any ideas on how to rotate the instances around local Y accordingly to the curve tilt?
Though they currently share the same socket, the difference between an angle and a regular direction vector is extremely important. In your example you have a the rotation plugged into the “Vector” input, just watch out for that.
Ahhh thanks, I suspected that was something related to what the vector socket represented. And completely forgot that I could use Normal. I’m not at my PC now, but I assume that the tilt of the curve directly controls the normal direction right? Otherwise I would still need to rotate the normal.
Just to make sure I understood the issue:
Let’s say that I want to control the roll of the elements with an arbitrary value(constant field) and not with the curve tilt.
Could I rotate ( just like I wrongly tried to do with the rotation directly) the normal with an “vector rotate” around the tangent vector before aligning the instance rotation to the normal? It would be legal since in this case, I would rotate a direction vector (the normal) and not a Rotation vector, correct?
EDIT:
I tried myself, It works, I managed to add global offset to the tilt:
