Convert Triangulate node input to a selection #93817
Currently the triangulate node has a "minimum vertices" input to control which faces are triangulated.
A selection input evaluated on the face domain would be simpler to understand and more flexible:
This change can be made with versioning, by adding some nodes before each "minimum vertices" socket.
Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may exist for a short time before cleaning up, in most cases it CANNOT be undone. Continue?