Thank you @Erindale, artist feedback is really valuable when we coders are fumbling around with new concepts. The lack of constructive geometry tools is something i struggle with every time, and end up doing needlessly complicated mangling of some existing primitive.
I’ve started implementing my own proposal for attribute sockets a little while ago, and i am cautiously optimistic that it can work. I want to push it a little further, migrating most of the attribute nodes to the new style, and then see if the geometry socket can be eliminated from most nodes as well. Then eventually moving to “pure” lists wouldn’t be such a big step any more, at least that’s what i hope to prove.
@LudvikKoutny’s idea about defining the geometry context only where it is actually needed could work nicely for that. With the attribute sockets the geometry tends to run in parallel to output attributes, making it mostly redundant. Geometry inputs would only really be needed on complex nodes or “output” nodes, and could be back-propagated to inputs.
We’ll see where this is going. I’m happy there is some consensus though on simplifying the visual language of GN and opening up new possibilities.
