THERE IS NO POINT ROTATE NODE IN 3.0 #93111
Labels
No Label
Meta
Good First Issue
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
Eevee & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds, Tests & Devices
Module
Python API
Module
Rendering & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Information from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: blender/blender-manual#93111
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Pagename:
modeling/geometry_nodes/geometry/transformBlender Version:
3.0Documentation Language:
enPermanent link
Short description of error
Point rotate is missing in 3.0 completely leaving no way to rotate every point of the geometry individual. As this article state it should still be present, but is not metioned anywhere else in the manual. Since 3.0 is releasing in a few weeks, I feel inclined to use the updated node system so I don't lose progress in my other files but without this feature I cannot complete my project at all.
Added subscriber: @Dean-Johnson
Added subscriber: @Eary
This is not a bug, the
Point Rotatenode has been completely replaced. You can either do it on theInstance on PointsnodeOr do it after the instancing:
Hmm just clicked on your link to the manual, it is indeed still referring to the legacy
Point Rotatenode, but in this page the transform node is checked: #92239I guess they assumed becasue the transform node itself did not change so the documentation also does not change, while actually it needs to change because it refers to other legacy nodes.
So maybe this is more of a documentation problem here.
Thank you for your quick response, but I still cannot replicate the same results as point rotate. How in this instance using the new 3.0 node setup could I achieve the same results as point rotate? I would like the two walls to face each other{F11812309}
point rotate in 2.95 will make these all individually rotate, however the methods you suggest didn't not cause it to rotate. I know in that picture the nodes are no longer connected, but they were when I tested. geometrynodespractice.blend
Not sure what you meant by "two walls to face each other", but the
Rotationsocket onInstance on Pointsnode should do the job of the legacyPoint Rotatenode just fineThis is legacy nodes:
This is new nodes:
This is what I'm trying to accomplish using the 2.93
Added subscriber: @HooglyBoogly
Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Archived'
I committed a fix for that page in the documentation. The answer is basically to either use the rotation input to the instance on points node, or use the rotate instances node after instancing. But the bug tracker isn't the best place for questions like that anyway.
Changed status from 'Archived' to: 'Resolved'
Thanks for the report though. There's a lot of documentation and few people working on it, so it's easy for something like that to slip through.
EDIT: Just saw your comment below, I believe my screenshot here solves your problem.
My apologies, and thanks for all the help!
Still have not resolved the issue I'm finding however as rotate instances is still not a perfect subsitute for point rotation's simple function in the type of work I'm doing. If it is supposed to function the same, then perhaps there is a further issue.
Thanks this is exactly it! can you just explain this briefly so I can pass this knowledge along to fellow 3.0ers? taking two nodes to do something that used to take one doesn't seem ideal, but perhaps it give better control in some other way
Capture Attributenode is a node specialized for evaluating Fields or values into Anonymous Attributes (Attributes that don't require you to type names), and pass it down for later use. Note that the arribute itself gets passed down through the green wire, the dashed wire is a field connection that is only a reference to the attribute.More about Fields and Anonymous Attributes in general you can read this proposal, though the end product has some difference it is still worth reading:
https://devtalk.blender.org/t/fields-and-anonymous-attributes-proposal/19450
You can also read this blog post, but note that the blog post contains some different terminology when it comes to "Anonymous Attributes" etc
https://code.blender.org/2021/08/attributes-and-fields/
If you mean Rotate Euler and Capture Attribute, they are planning to add a Rotation socket type so I think potentially in 3.1 we might get to just use Euler in the Capture Attribute node without another node. (This part is just my guess though)
I think I spoke too soon. This arrangement causes some issues: I'm fundamentally trying to make a point cube cloud only using one node of instance on points
. This used to be possible with point instance and point rotation and it doesn't seem feasible anymore, at least not with as simple of a setup without point rotation.
Since I cannot add multiple instances of euler rotation through the capture attribute node to one instance on points, I have to create multiple nodes to rotate and rotate the faces , which makes something like masking very difficult because now I am left to mask each face individually. There very well could be something that's going over my head about fields and how this could be simplified, but it seems a procedural buildings workflw like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_FwvA4w5ik&t=124s may not be possible in 3.0 fields?
All that being said, got pretty far in the building/floor generation and pretty happy with it, kinda bummed to be stuck at this stage geometrynodespractice4.blend
If this discussion still needs to go on I think we should move on to this thread:
https://devtalk.blender.org/t/geometry-nodes/16108/2399
Because like Hans said
will do- apologies.