"Face Group" / "Group Index" / "Face Set" concept naming #102962

New Issue

Hans Goudey · 2022-12-05T22:14:34+01:00

Hans Goudey commented

2022-12-05 22:14:34 +01:00

Options

Face Group
Group Index
Face Set

Note: "Face Map" is currently used in Blender too, but I don't think that's a good name, so I won't consider it here

Face Group

Pros
- Simple name, easier to understand
- Doesn't convey the integer internals very well
Cons
- Sounds similar to "Vertex Group", but it's an integer, not a bool+float

Group Index

Pros
- The same name for every domain, allowing consistency
- Shows that it's just an integer internally, maybe making more complex operations simpler
Cons
- Doesn't contain the domain in the name, so it's not very helpful
- Cryptic, not helpful to new users not comfortable with "indices"
- The integers might not actually index into anything (they can just be random values)

Face Set

Pros
- The same name as the same concept in sculpt mode, aiding in understanding
- Similarly simple to "Face Group", but doesn't have the unfortunate similarity to "vertex group"
Cons
- Generalizing the "Set" name with different domains like "Vertex Set" may "pollute" the concept
- Doesn't describe the fact that it's just an integer

The name could generalize for multi-domain cases like "Set Index"

**Options** * Face Group * Group Index * Face Set *Note: "Face Map" is currently used in Blender too, but I don't think that's a good name, so I won't consider it here* **Face Group** * Pros * Simple name, easier to understand * Doesn't convey the integer internals very well * Cons * Sounds similar to "Vertex Group", but it's an integer, not a bool+float **Group Index** * Pros * The same name for every domain, allowing consistency * Shows that it's just an integer internally, maybe making more complex operations simpler * Cons * Doesn't contain the domain in the name, so it's not very helpful * Cryptic, not helpful to new users not comfortable with "indices" * The integers might not actually index into anything (they can just be random values) **Face Set** * Pros * The same name as the same concept in sculpt mode, aiding in understanding * Similarly simple to "Face Group", but doesn't have the unfortunate similarity to "vertex group" * Cons * Generalizing the "Set" name with different domains like "Vertex Set" may "pollute" the concept * Doesn't describe the fact that it's just an integer *The name could generalize for multi-domain cases like "Set Index"*

Hans Goudey commented

2022-12-05 22:14:34 +01:00

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'

Hans Goudey commented

2022-12-05 22:14:34 +01:00

Added subscriber: @HooglyBoogly

Iliya Katushenock commented

2022-12-05 22:18:18 +01:00

Added subscriber: @mod_moder

Iliya Katushenock commented

2022-12-05 22:18:18 +01:00

I don't see a problem in

Point Group
Edge Set
...
Index is a lot unifed one
And group is no has specific of random domain. It more general

I don't see a problem in - Point Group - Edge Set ... Index is a lot unifed one And group is no has specific of random domain. It more general

Leon Schittek commented

2022-12-05 22:35:27 +01:00

Added subscriber: @lone_noel

Caner Aslan commented

2022-12-06 07:02:50 +01:00

Added subscriber: @Caner-Aslan

Caner Aslan commented

2022-12-06 07:02:51 +01:00

"Face Group" feels like the right one.

Faruk Ahmet commented

2022-12-06 16:51:55 +01:00

Added subscriber: @Kuboa

Wannes Malfait commented

2022-12-06 18:21:29 +01:00

Added subscriber: @wannes.malfait

Wannes Malfait commented

2022-12-06 18:21:29 +01:00

I prefer Face Set, exactly for the reasons described. You want to have the same concept for vertices, but then Vertex Group would be a problem if we went with Face Group, so I really don't see that as an option

I prefer `Face Set`, exactly for the reasons described. You want to have the same concept for vertices, but then `Vertex Group` would be a problem if we went with `Face Group`, so I really don't see that as an option

Caner Aslan commented

2022-12-06 22:16:10 +01:00

right, cheers to the name father/mother of vertex group :) , what about "face group index", too long?

Hans Goudey commented

2022-12-06 22:33:13 +01:00

Compared to the simplicity of "Face Set", I do think "Face Group Index" is a bit long. Personally I also prefer Face Set.

I think we would use "Edge Set" for the edge rings node (D16471), but I can't think of anywhere else we would use this naming immediately.

Compared to the simplicity of "Face Set", I do think "Face Group Index" is a bit long. Personally I also prefer `Face Set`. I think we would use "Edge Set" for the edge rings node ([D16471](https://archive.blender.org/developer/D16471)), but I can't think of anywhere else we would use this naming immediately.

Caner Aslan commented

2022-12-06 22:36:26 +01:00

no problem, I will get used to it.

Faruk Ahmet commented

2022-12-07 00:06:27 +01:00

This comment was removed by @Kuboa

*This comment was removed by @Kuboa*

Jacques Lucke commented

2023-01-13 16:44:03 +01:00

Added subscriber: @JacquesLucke

Jacques Lucke commented

2023-01-13 16:44:03 +01:00

![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F14148416/image.png)

Hans Goudey commented

2023-01-19 23:42:58 +01:00

Some context the the screenshot above-- we discussed this in a few meeting. Mostly we agreed that either "Set" or "Group" would work okay.
"Group" won out in the end since it maps a bit better to the "Group ID" terminology which is a natural socket name that shows it's an integer,
the order doesn't matter, and it should be the same for many faces. "Set" also had the disadvantage that it sounded like the "Set" nodes.

The largest downside of "Group" is that it sounds a bit like vertex group. The extra "ID" word used on many sockets should help show a difference.
I could still see us running into that problem in the future. And I do think that similarities with "Set" were much better than the similarities with "Vertex Group".
So now I'm second guessing this again (!), but in the interest of moving forward and not bike-shedding I will commit the renames above.

Some context the the screenshot above-- we discussed this in a few meeting. Mostly we agreed that either "Set" or "Group" would work okay. "Group" won out in the end since it maps a bit better to the "Group ID" terminology which is a natural socket name that shows it's an integer, the order doesn't matter, and it should be the same for many faces. "Set" also had the disadvantage that it sounded like the "Set" nodes. The largest downside of "Group" is that it sounds a bit like vertex group. The extra "ID" word used on many sockets should help show a difference. I could still see us running into that problem in the future. And I do think that similarities with "Set" were much better than the similarities with "Vertex Group". So now I'm second guessing this again (!), but in the interest of moving forward and not bike-shedding I will commit the renames above.

Hans Goudey self-assigned this 2023-01-19 23:58:27 +01:00

Gerstmann Bradley commented

2023-01-29 14:41:52 +01:00

Added subscriber: @Bradley_G

Gerstmann Bradley commented

2023-01-29 14:41:52 +01:00

I think "Group ID" is generally a very good idea. This idea can be generalized to many different domain/nodes, instead of being a concept that may be used once only.
As for name similarity with "Vertex Group", I wonder whether it can possible to rename vertex group into things like "Vertex Set" or others?
Although it's called group, essentially it's just boolean. In GN, we most often just call them "selection", in which demonstrates "vertex group" may not be a good name in the first place.

I think "Group ID" is generally a very good idea. This idea can be generalized to many different domain/nodes, instead of being a concept that may be used once only. As for name similarity with "Vertex Group", I wonder whether it can possible to rename vertex group into things like "Vertex Set" or others? Although it's called group, essentially it's just boolean. In GN, we most often just call them "selection", in which demonstrates "vertex group" may not be a good name in the first place.

Jacques Lucke referenced this issue

2023-02-08 18:30:35 +01:00

Geometry Nodes: Edges to Face Groups Node #104428

Hans Goudey referenced this issue from a commit

2023-02-09 16:27:23 +01:00

Geometry Nodes: Edges to Face Groups Node

Hans Goudey closed this issue

2023-02-09 22:45:38 +01:00

Blender Bot added

Status

Archived

and removed