0-Select some edges and polygons and mark them with a name or something for later user.
1- Thicken the cookie from the 2d
2- Then I would like to select the holes polygons and move them inside along their normals.
3- Then do the sale for that outer shape
4- Bevel the edges on the outside created after the thicken but only the top faces, not the bottom.
5- Apply a noise effect to add some subtle irregular areas to the cookie.
I’m new but I think that is not possible for now right?
Thanks everyone
Basically everything is possible in geonodes except bevel.
This is what attributes are for
The extrude node should do the trick
How do you identify the holes? I guess you can sample the texture and determine where the darker parts are, and move those vertices. This is probably not 100% reliable but this is how I would go about it. However this will require a very high-res model
Not sure what that means
No bevel for now, but I’m sure you can manage something with the fields outputs of the extrude node. Maybe just scale those down a bit.
Easy with a texture and a mask
Still I see a big unknown here:
how will you generate that beautiful topology as seen in your image above? Remeshing would give you a “marching cubes” topology, and quad remeshing (which doesn’t exist as a node right now) wouldn’t necessarily preserve that nice radial symmetry.
Yes, you shouldn’t have issues doing all of that you listed. Right now geonodes lack a lot of mesh operations (the ones that alter topology such as loopcut, etc) so you should have a complete basemesh as a start, but given the basemesh shown in the video you should be able to obtain a beautiful cookie.
I’ll submit my design for Particles system nodes, and can works with Physics nodes because is the combinaison of every setting like, rigid body particles with custom mesh for exemple, and we can convert it to cloth when he touch the floor for exemple… this design make somes possibilities with not much nodes.
2 nodes (called Compile system(output) and Beginning(imput)) is OBLIGATORY for make the system operationnal. and in the node begin we can put anything or between bot nodes you can put another nodes with “Functions” (Is operator function you put in the nodes you can remove it or add it).
An color code designed the catégories of the operator exemple : Particles (operator) Physics (operator). System (operator) etc… and all operator catégories have a color assigned here red for the system. etc for other catégories. is more visual when you search what operator make a thing
And if the operator have a pen of side the name he have a properties we can edit.
There’s some work left. I need to figure out how to solve the merging of components but haven’t had the time I need to spend on it to get it done. Those kind of algorithms are still a bit above my pay grade.
It seems like a very useful node with a very poor name. Tessellation in the context of 3D DCCs has very different meaning, so this will cause tons of confusion down the road. I’d find a better name for this node and lave the term “Tesselate” node for when there is a node which actually does tessellation, in the 3D graphics software sense of the term.
100% agree. I think I saw lots of experiments with this node by Jacob Merill and I was completely confused about what the node actually did, purely because of the name. Maybe something like ‘populate’?
Populate is a bit vague. The description says following: “tesselate can spawn a mesh instance at each face and distort it to match the shape of the faces distortion”
So something like “Faces to Meshes”, “Meshes from Faces” or “Create Meshes from Faces”…
It’s like ‘instance on faces’, but with some morphing as well. So maybe something along that line? Instancing is not correct of course, because they are not instances. I don’t really like “Faces to Meshes” and variants either, because that sounds like a conversion and a face already is a mesh. “Populate Faces”, “Add Mesh to Faces”, “Morph Mesh to Faces”?
Maybe it’s best if the original author comes up with a new name, because he actually knows what it does exactly
Sure, it could maybe be confusing if you’re deep into computer graphics, but my understanding is that the classic use for the word tessellation is (from Wikipedia) ":
Me too, we are quite limited by the nodes we can use if we wish to stick to a ‘streamlined’ workflow.
Example: “Somehow, you created a brand new revolutionary retopo modifier in geometry node? Well you might did that, but in the process you losed all vertex-groups, color-attributes and UV’s of the users… congratulation your modifier is now useless and quite destructive”
That’s my biggest issue so far with geonode, and I’m not sure what’s the solution to this problem, a “transfer everything at once” node might be too slow to compute i guess
The classic use does not apply in a 3D software, because the 3D software changes the context. It’s like talking about “skinning” in a CG studio compared a meat factory. You will use the same term but people will assume you are talking about setting up influences of bones to vertices, not removing skin from dead animals.
Proper naming isn’t that much work, but sooner you get it right, the less work you will have down the road.
Both tiling, and tesselation sound too ‘2D’ to me.
If you make sure the input geometry is connected to the output I think everything is preserved. though UV’s turn into 2d vector attributes. In later versions (maybe 3.3?) UV’s will become 2d vector attributes, to that will cease to be a problem.
I’m not sure how vertex-groups and vertex colors are handled currently. But afaik the plan is all those things will become attributes and in that form stay preserved over geonodes modifiers.
When there is no (geometry) data flow from the input to the output you lose all attributes.
Is it because it’s associated with textures? in general tiling can happen on all dimensions, but in this case it is in fact confined to a surface so why not. Maybe something like wrap? wraparound?
This devtalk is for development purpose
