Convert Triangulate node input to a selection #93817

New Issue

Hans Goudey · 2021-12-07T15:02:06+01:00

Hans Goudey commented

2021-12-07 15:02:06 +01:00

Currently the triangulate node has a "minimum vertices" input to control which faces are triangulated.
{F12704494 size=full}

A selection input evaluated on the face domain would be simpler to understand and more flexible:
{F12704505 size=full}

This change can be made with versioning, by adding some nodes before each "minimum vertices" socket.

Currently the triangulate node has a "minimum vertices" input to control which faces are triangulated. {[F12704494](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F12704494/image.png) size=full} A selection input evaluated on the face domain would be simpler to understand and more flexible: {[F12704505](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F12704505/image.png) size=full} This change can be made with versioning, by adding some nodes before each "minimum vertices" socket.

Hans Goudey commented

2021-12-07 15:02:06 +01:00

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

Hans Goudey commented

2021-12-07 15:02:06 +01:00

Added subscriber: @HooglyBoogly

Johnny Matthews commented

2021-12-09 05:11:00 +01:00

Added subscriber: @guitargeek

Brecht Van Lommel commented

2021-12-13 18:48:40 +01:00

Added subscriber: @brecht

Brecht Van Lommel commented

2021-12-13 18:48:40 +01:00

Can't you keep the Minimum Vertices settings, and add a Selection socket?

I don't think it's simpler for the average user to create that node setup, when they simply want to keep quads and only triangulate n-gons.

Can't you keep the Minimum Vertices settings, and add a Selection socket? I don't think it's simpler for the average user to create that node setup, when they simply want to keep quads and only triangulate n-gons.

Hans Goudey commented

2021-12-14 18:26:55 +01:00

I suppose it would be possible to keep both, but I don't think that would be an improvement, for a few reasons:

No arbitrary relationship between the inputs: Would a selection override that socket, or be combined somehow-- boolean and, or? It's not clear just by looking at the node.
Similarity and consistency with other nodes: All other nodes have a selection input, we can explain it in the same way for every node, and understanding the selection input for one node means you understand all of them.

Making it easy to add the face neighbors node, with socket search link dragging, or ship a "Triangulate N-Gons" node in the asset bundle might be alternative improvements.

EDIT: Finished the last sentence

I suppose it would be possible to keep both, but I don't think that would be an improvement, for a few reasons: - No arbitrary relationship between the inputs: Would a selection override that socket, or be combined somehow-- boolean and, or? It's not clear just by looking at the node. - Similarity and consistency with other nodes: All other nodes have a selection input, we can explain it in the same way for every node, and understanding the selection input for one node means you understand all of them. Making it easy to add the face neighbors node, with socket search link dragging, or ship a "Triangulate N-Gons" node in the asset bundle *might be alternative improvements*. EDIT: Finished the last sentence

Brecht Van Lommel commented

2021-12-14 19:30:16 +01:00

I think the relation would be pretty clear, it's just like triangulating a selection in edit mode, with an additional setting to use only a subset of the selection.

Anyway, I think it's also a deeper design philosophy thing. I think adding sockets that are commonly useful is a good thing, and don't think the Unix philosophy of making the building blocks as atomic as possible is suitable as a UX principle for Blender. A value you can tweak is much simpler than figuring out node logic like this, though of course there is a balance. Assets can help, but if you end up with multiple triangulate nodes that's adding complexity in another way.

I think the relation would be pretty clear, it's just like triangulating a selection in edit mode, with an additional setting to use only a subset of the selection. Anyway, I think it's also a deeper design philosophy thing. I think adding sockets that are commonly useful is a good thing, and don't think the Unix philosophy of making the building blocks as atomic as possible is suitable as a UX principle for Blender. A value you can tweak is much simpler than figuring out node logic like this, though of course there is a balance. Assets can help, but if you end up with multiple triangulate nodes that's adding complexity in another way.

Hans Goudey commented

2021-12-14 20:04:43 +01:00

Yeah, I agree that more atomic nodes isn't necessarily more user friendly. I guess I just placed the tipping point in that tradeoff a bit differently than you did.

Do you think only triangulating n-gons is a common enough use case to add this socket though? That just seems like one of many possibly useful selections, I'm not sure how to rank it compared to others.

An "N-Gons" asset bundle input node might be a simple way to accomplish this too. Just add the triangulate node, click and drag on the selection input, and type "Ngons". To me that's an intuitive workflow with simple and flexible parts.

Yeah, I agree that more atomic nodes isn't necessarily more user friendly. I guess I just placed the tipping point in that tradeoff a bit differently than you did. Do you think only triangulating n-gons is a common enough use case to add this socket though? That just seems like one of many possibly useful selections, I'm not sure how to rank it compared to others. An "N-Gons" asset bundle input node might be a simple way to accomplish this too. Just add the triangulate node, click and drag on the selection input, and type "Ngons". To me that's an intuitive workflow with simple and flexible parts.

Brecht Van Lommel commented

2021-12-16 20:24:09 +01:00

I think it's reasonable for nodes that are equivalent to existing modifiers to have dozens of sockets as long as they are well organized (though we don't have a socket grouping UI for that yet). So at least where I'm coming from, the threshold for adding something like this would be very low and common enough.

The reason is to suggest to users things they can do and to provide a simple button for it they can click, not having to think at all about how to create node setup for this purpose but it just being there already.

Anyway, I don't want to get deep in discussion about the design principles to follow here, will leave it to the geometry nodes team.

I think it's reasonable for nodes that are equivalent to existing modifiers to have dozens of sockets as long as they are well organized (though we don't have a socket grouping UI for that yet). So at least where I'm coming from, the threshold for adding something like this would be very low and common enough. The reason is to suggest to users things they can do and to provide a simple button for it they can click, not having to think at all about how to create node setup for this purpose but it just being there already. Anyway, I don't want to get deep in discussion about the design principles to follow here, will leave it to the geometry nodes team.

Johnny Matthews self-assigned this 2022-01-12 15:44:36 +01:00

Jacques Lucke commented

2022-03-22 14:38:00 +01:00

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Resolved'

Jacques Lucke closed this issue

2022-03-22 14:38:00 +01:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Label

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Convert Triangulate node input to a selection #93817