Anyone knows how to revert node editor background from dots back to grid? To me, dots add much more visual noise to the node editor than subtle grid lines.
3 Likes
I think they got rid of the grid.
Yep gonzo, I donât mind the dots, but I many people would. In Houdini for graphs you can choose between a grid or dots to accommodate this. I think it might be nice as an option in preferences as well.
1 Like
There is some bug or inefficiency with how GN handles instances right now. Itâs even way slower than the old particle system. So probably only devs could tell you why thatâs the case.
But if you realize instances you get just one object with a ton of polygons, and Blenderâs viewport can handle quite a lot of polys.
1 Like
The switch socket should swap sockets when a wire is plugged into an already occupied socket. (Like a mixrgb node) However, the socket simply disconnects.
2 Likes
It is similar like using Particle Instance modifier (produces single object = super fast viewport) vs Render As option in particle system settings (producing individual instances) - rendering a single object is always faster.
The problem with the current GN is that it canât really cope with larger amount of instances as it is even slower than with particles, and you canât workaround it using Realize node because it destroys all those important mesh data like UVs, vertex colors / groups etc. (it âmovesâ it to an object attributes instead).
Many people (including me) are waiting for this to be fixed, so we can finally start using GNs in real (heavy) projects.
Until then the Particle Instance modifier is the only way to go if you want to work with >100k instances.
1 Like
Did you download the beta though? The dots in beta look very subtle, if you donât look closely you might even mistake it as an empty background
2 Likes
I hope this is the place for tiny suggestions:
Rename option in Point Instance node to better represent function:
I suggest that the âWhole Collectionâ option in the Geometry Nodes Point Instance node is poorly named.
The essential function of this switch is to toggle between using a Collection memberâs Local origin or the Collectionâs Global origin. The function centers around the concept of origin, not âwholeâ or âentiretyâ. The idea of âwholeâ is implicit in the selection of Collection vs Object higher in the node.
Renaming the function to âLocal Originsâ or âGlobal Originâ better reflects its use.
1 Like
Not sure if you are aware, Geometry Nodes in 3.0 just had a major change, including the Point Instance node you are talking about, this node is now replaced by Instance on Points node, and it looks like this:
It does the âWhole Collectionâ behavior by default, you can enable the previous behavior by checking the Separate Children on Collection Info node and the Pick Instance on the Instance on Points node
1 Like
Hi,
I donât think itâs possible but wanted to check:
Is there a way to create a volume from a mesh in Geometry Nodes?
I.e create mesh > convert to volume > scatter points in volume
Basically, I can only get points on the surface of a mesh.
Thanks
no, but afaik you could create an empty volume, use the mesh to volume modifier, and then GN over the volume, but you wonât be able to distribute points inside a volume.
You can use several transform nodes with the scale tio 0.8, and use Join Geometry to get something similar to an onion, then distribute points there and you will get something similar to a volume distribution, not perfect but good enough in general
Good . (What a moving target.)
After I slept on my suggestion, I realized the checkbox problem was that it was, um, âinvertedâ: âCollectionâ already implies the whole collection, as is now the default, as it should be, and the checkbox should designate the exception to that, which it now does.
So, somebody in Amsterdam agrees with me, huzzah!
Is there any way of manipulating and writing uv maps in 3.0? I can route a uvmap from the group input to the group output using the face corner domain. The only issue seems to be that there is no vec2 for the uvâs and I can see in the spreadsheet that the default âUVMapââ becomes a vec3 and no longer works.
Is there any way around this? I was fairly certain you could do this in the pre-fields 3.0. I have managed to create and manipulate fake uvâs from scratch in geonodes and use them in the shader editor via the attribute node, but I really want to be able to write them to the real uvmap to then export the mesh for game dev.
3 Likes
I donât get it work too.
Here is a test file âŚ
Create surface shape and write UV Map
( U and V are surface coordinates. UV Map is the UV map âGenerate Surfaceâ creates for the surface. )
thanks for trying! I think it is a current limitation, and I wonder if just being able to write the uv attribute as a vec2 in the group export would solve it. You can clearly see in the spreadsheet that when the default âUVMapâ attribute changes from a vec2 to a vec3, there is no longer any uv mapping on an object. Even though the x and y components stay the same, the addition of the z component all on zeros seems to confuse blender.
1 Like
Hey, I donât know if that has been mentionned already, but is there a way to get attributes from an alembic like the velocity, or any other custom attributes ?
Maybe these two PatchesâŚ
https://developer.blender.org/D11591
https://developer.blender.org/D11592
1 Like
Unfortunately I was just sending out a custom attribute as a vec3. Thereâs no support at the moment for vec2 in Geo Nodes so the UVs just get written out with 0s.
1 Like
But they were working, werenât they?