Particle system removal #105316

New Issue

Open

opened 2023-02-28 20:42:03 +01:00 by Hans Goudey · 14 comments

Hans Goudey commented

2023-02-28 20:42:03 +01:00

Member

Convert hair particle system combs to curves objects with versioning
Remove explode modifier
Remove particle instance modifier
Remove non-hair particles

Needs agreement

Decide how much of simulation and non-hair particle systems to replace with versioning vs. remove

- [ ] Convert hair particle system combs to curves objects with versioning - [ ] Remove explode modifier - [ ] Remove particle instance modifier - [ ] Remove non-hair particles **Needs agreement** - [ ] Decide how much of simulation and non-hair particle systems to replace with versioning vs. remove

Hans Goudey added this to the 4.0 milestone 2023-02-28 20:42:03 +01:00

Hans Goudey added the

Nodes & Physics

labels 2023-02-28 20:42:04 +01:00

Hans Goudey added this to the Nodes & Physics project 2023-02-28 20:42:05 +01:00

Hans Goudey added the

label 2023-02-28 23:32:51 +01:00

~~Thomas Dinges referenced this issue 2023-03-07 11:07:33 +01:00~~

Breaking changes for 4.0 #105523

Kévin Dietrich commented

2023-03-15 05:32:50 +01:00

Member

Just to note, I have an old patch to add support for PointCloud as input to fluid simulations, without replacing particles. I guess this would be part of this task. It's simple enough that it could be in for next version, then particles support removed by 4.0.

Just to note, I have an old patch to add support for PointCloud as input to fluid simulations, without replacing particles. I guess this would be part of this task. It's simple enough that it could be in for next version, then particles support removed by 4.0.

Rincewind commented

2023-04-08 15:42:16 +02:00

Not sure if this the right place to discuss, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea to remove the particle hair system in Blender 4.0.

The new geo-node based hair system is lacking some important things, which makes it e.g. for me to use the new geo-node based system.

And I'm not talking about simulation (I'm aware of that there is work going on).

What I have in mind is:

Performance. I cant use the new node/curved based hair on a character with 16k+ faces. It's becomes incrediable slow. The old particle base system can handle this with no efforts.
I'm using currently a DAZ Genesis 8.1 figure with 16k faces. And Genesis 9 has even more faces (around 32k).
I think there is still no "Deflect Emitter" feature the new curved based hair?

I really don't think that we should remove the old hair system until there is a solution for those. And after Blender 4.0 is target for end of 2023 I doubt that this is realstic.

Not sure if this the right place to discuss, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea to remove the particle hair system in Blender 4.0. The new geo-node based hair system is lacking some important things, which makes it e.g. for me to use the new geo-node based system. And I'm not talking about simulation (I'm aware of that there is work going on). What I have in mind is: - Performance. I cant use the new node/curved based hair on a character with 16k+ faces. It's becomes incrediable slow. The old particle base system can handle this with no efforts. I'm using currently a DAZ Genesis 8.1 figure with 16k faces. And Genesis 9 has even more faces (around 32k). - I think there is still no "Deflect Emitter" feature the new curved based hair? I really don't think that we should remove the old hair system until there is a solution for those. And after Blender 4.0 is target for end of 2023 I doubt that this is realstic.

Iliya Katushenock commented

2023-04-08 15:47:42 +02:00

Member

Performance. I cant use the new node/curved based hair on a character with 16k+ faces. It's becomes incrediable slow. The old particle base system can handle this with no efforts.
I'm using currently a DAZ Genesis 8.1 figure with 16k faces. And Genesis 9 has even more faces (around 32k).

You need to really be sure that there is a performance problem. In that case, it would be nice if you just reported it as a bug, then it would be fixed.

I think there is still no "Deflect Emitter" feature the new curved based hair?

You can still do whatever you want with the new node groups, you just have to do it.

> - Performance. I cant use the new node/curved based hair on a character with 16k+ faces. It's becomes incrediable slow. The old particle base system can handle this with no efforts. > I'm using currently a DAZ Genesis 8.1 figure with 16k faces. And Genesis 9 has even more faces (around 32k). You need to really be sure that there is a performance problem. In that case, it would be nice if you just reported it as a bug, then it would be fixed. > - I think there is still no "Deflect Emitter" feature the new curved based hair? You can still do whatever you want with the new node groups, you just have to do it.

Rincewind commented

2023-04-08 15:54:28 +02:00

You need to really be sure that there is a performance problem. In that case, it would be nice if you just reported it as a bug, then it would be fixed.

I did this 7 month ago, but it was closed because they don't consider performance issues as bugs. I hardly disagree here. I could handle such meshes with the old particle system without any issues, but the new one fails on it. So, for me it's a valid issue.
#100805

I think there is still no "Deflect Emitter" feature the new curved based hair?

You can still do whatever you want with the new node groups, you just have to do it.

I think that should be a toggle for the curves, like in the old system.
However, I think there should be an offical solution from Blender before releasing version 4.0. And even if that means that there is a node group for it in the Blender Essentials.

> You need to really be sure that there is a performance problem. In that case, it would be nice if you just reported it as a bug, then it would be fixed. I did this 7 month ago, but it was closed because they don't consider performance issues as bugs. I hardly disagree here. I could handle such meshes with the old particle system without any issues, but the new one fails on it. So, for me it's a valid issue. https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/100805 > > - I think there is still no "Deflect Emitter" feature the new curved based hair? > > You can still do whatever you want with the new node groups, you just have to do it. I think that should be a toggle for the curves, like in the old system. However, I think there should be an offical solution from Blender before releasing version 4.0. And even if that means that there is a node group for it in the Blender Essentials.

Rincewind commented

2023-04-08 23:05:15 +02:00

Thank you @mod_moder for creating issue #106713 which takes care about the slowness.

However, my second point is already fixed. I just found out that a replacement for "Deflect Emitter" is already implemented. It's a little bit hidden and called "Use Sculpt Collision".

Despite everything, I still think it's very bold to remove the old hair node system at the end of the year. Even if the hair simulations is added and the slowness fixed until end of year, I think the system should get more time until is really stable and working perfectly.

What's wrong with leaving the old hair system in 4.0 and giving users enough time to migrate slowly?

Thank you @mod_moder for creating issue #106713 which takes care about the slowness. However, my second point is already fixed. I just found out that a replacement for "Deflect Emitter" is already implemented. It's a little bit hidden and called "Use Sculpt Collision". Despite everything, I still think it's very bold to remove the old hair node system at the end of the year. Even if the hair simulations is added and the slowness fixed until end of year, I think the system should get more time until is really stable and working perfectly. What's wrong with leaving the old hair system in 4.0 and giving users enough time to migrate slowly?

Rincewind commented

2023-04-22 15:25:12 +02:00

I found an addtional reason why I think the removal of the old particle hair should be delayed.

The old particle system is added in the modifier stack of a mesh. This allows me to add the hair before the geometry is changed, e.g. by subdivsion. This is pretty usefully, because the hair is than not affacted by geometry changes through modifier e.g. the subdivision modifier:

blender_E00u7jTZpS.mp4

But the new system is bound to the surface. That means, if I sculpt my hair without any sudivision, or increase the subdivision level later, I get a different result of my hair sculp:

blender_sOOVP63Kol.mp4

This is for me a step backwards, compared to the old particle hair.

I found an addtional reason why I think the removal of the old particle hair should be delayed. The old particle system is added in the modifier stack of a mesh. This allows me to add the hair before the geometry is changed, e.g. by subdivsion. This is pretty usefully, because the hair is than not affacted by geometry changes through modifier e.g. the subdivision modifier: [blender_E00u7jTZpS.mp4](/attachments/d8d5490c-3369-4a28-97ba-9bfc1fb3385d) But the new system is bound to the surface. That means, if I sculpt my hair without any sudivision, or increase the subdivision level later, I get a different result of my hair sculp: [blender_sOOVP63Kol.mp4](/attachments/48cc786b-0788-477c-b476-3f0e7c1c4939) This is for me a step backwards, compared to the old particle hair.

blender_E00u7jTZpS.mp4

1.3 MiB

blender_sOOVP63Kol.mp4

2.7 MiB

Steve White commented

2023-05-27 19:55:52 +02:00

Use a previous version if you need. Some things may just not happen all in one release.

Use a previous version if you need. Some things may just not happen all in one release.

Tanza3D commented

2023-06-26 22:29:08 +02:00

I similarly think it's a bad idea to completely remove the legacy particle systems. I have alot of character models which use the legacy particle systems, and simply no time before 4.0 to completely convert them, and on top of that in my experience performance with it is much lower, although I haven't tested in recent times. There are other features in 4.0 which I would like to use, and being stuck on an old version is something I would prefer to avoid. I see no reason to not give people a few years to switch over.

I similarly think it's a bad idea to completely remove the legacy particle systems. I have alot of character models which use the legacy particle systems, and simply no time before 4.0 to completely convert them, and on top of that in my experience performance with it is much lower, although I haven't tested in recent times. There are other features in 4.0 which I would like to use, and being stuck on an old version is something I would prefer to avoid. I see no reason to not give people a few years to switch over.

Iliya Katushenock commented

2023-06-26 22:31:40 +02:00

Member

@Archie-Williams Settings can be easily converted to nodes. You won't have to do it yourself. Supporting parallel 2x systems is a bad idea. And performance will improve over time.

@Archie-Williams Settings can be easily converted to nodes. You won't have to do it yourself. Supporting parallel 2x systems is a bad idea. And performance will improve over time.

Hans Goudey commented

2023-07-07 15:43:14 +02:00

Author

Member

Indeed, there isn't enough time on the agenda to do this in 4.0. And better if the new system gets a bit more time to mature first.

Indeed, there isn't enough time on the agenda to do this in 4.0. And better if the new system gets a bit more time to mature first.

Hans Goudey changed title from ~~Particle system removal for 4.0~~ to Particle system removal

2023-07-07 15:43:23 +02:00

Sun Kim commented

2023-08-25 08:37:10 +02:00

Contributor

Indeed, there isn't enough time on the agenda to do this in 4.0. And better if the new system gets a bit more time to mature first.

Shouldn't this be removed from the milestone too? It's still listed.

> Indeed, there isn't enough time on the agenda to do this in 4.0. And better if the new system gets a bit more time to mature first. Shouldn't this be removed from the milestone too? It's still listed.

Hans Goudey commented

2023-08-25 13:07:10 +02:00

Author

Member

Right, thanks

Right, thanks

Hans Goudey removed this from the 4.0 milestone 2023-08-25 13:07:36 +02:00

Philipp Oeser commented

2023-08-25 13:33:11 +02:00

Member

Just for reference, this one (even if closed) has a couple of points regarding proper animation/deformation support : #109285
(think there might be more report, can try to dig them up)

Just for reference, this one (even if closed) has a couple of points regarding proper animation/deformation support : #109285 (think there might be more report, can try to dig them up)

xZaki commented

2023-09-11 01:14:23 +02:00

Something i should add is that i think the particle system should be marked as legacy/depracated if it's set to be removed in a future release. A warning on top of the particle tab that says something like "Legacy system: Will not be actively maintained and may be removed in a future version". I think encouraging people to use new systems (in this case moreso disencouraging using old systems) is important, as it will help them mature quicker with more community support (more feedback and issues found), as well as help with discoverability, since many users may not know the existence of the newer systems (and if you look up, for example, tutorials for hair good chance you'll just find the tutorials for particle hair). A sudden removal of something major like this without notice in the software may lead to frustration from such users.

Something i should add is that i think the particle system should be marked as legacy/depracated if it's set to be removed in a future release. A warning on top of the particle tab that says something like "Legacy system: Will not be actively maintained and may be removed in a future version". I think encouraging people to use new systems (in this case moreso disencouraging using old systems) is important, as it will help them mature quicker with more community support (more feedback and issues found), as well as help with discoverability, since many users may not know the existence of the newer systems (and if you look up, for example, tutorials for hair good chance you'll just find the tutorials for particle hair). A sudden removal of something major like this without notice in the software may lead to frustration from such users.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Label

Animation & Rigging

Asset Browser Project Overview

Automated Testing

Blender Asset Bundle

Dependency Graph

Development Management

EEVEE & Viewport

Images & Movies

Motion Tracking

Nodes & Physics

Pipeline, Assets & IO

Platforms, Builds & Tests

Render & Cycles

Render Pipeline

Sculpt, Paint & Texture

Video Sequencer

Virtual Reality

Blender 2.8 Project

Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser

Good First Issue

Animation & Rigging

Development Management

EEVEE & Viewport

Nodes & Physics

Pipeline, Assets & IO

Platforms, Builds & Tests

Render & Cycles

Sculpt, Paint & Texture

Needs Info from Developers

Needs Information from User

No Milestone

No project

No Assignees

9 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#105316

No description provided.