UI: Reroutes not connecting as expected, always defaulting to "s" shape #98779

Closed
opened 2022-06-10 22:53:29 +02:00 by João Generoso · 12 comments

System Information
Operating system: Windows-10-10.0.19041-SP0 64 Bits
Graphics card: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 456.71

Blender Version
Broken: version: 3.2.0, caused by ee1d5fb9e4
Worked: 3.1 (it was broken by the UI change to reroutes in the development of 3.2)

Short description of error
The UI change to reroutes made it so they always default to a "S" shape, even in situations when it was expected for it to turn into a semicircle (see below)
Expected (3.1 behaviour):
WhatsApp Image 2022-06-10 at 5.44.23 PM.jpeg
3.2 behaviour:
WhatsApp Image 2022-06-10 at 5.45.52 PM.jpeg

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Based on startup file, can be reproduced by rerouting nodes as shown in the images above. The file showing the problem is provided below (but can be reproduced with any file):
Node Reroute.blend

**System Information** Operating system: Windows-10-10.0.19041-SP0 64 Bits Graphics card: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 456.71 **Blender Version** Broken: version: 3.2.0, caused by ee1d5fb9e4 Worked: 3.1 (it was broken by the UI change to reroutes in the development of 3.2) **Short description of error** The UI change to reroutes made it so they always default to a "S" shape, even in situations when it was expected for it to turn into a semicircle (see below) Expected (3.1 behaviour): ![WhatsApp Image 2022-06-10 at 5.44.23 PM.jpeg](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13144066/WhatsApp_Image_2022-06-10_at_5.44.23_PM.jpeg) 3.2 behaviour: ![WhatsApp Image 2022-06-10 at 5.45.52 PM.jpeg](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13144070/WhatsApp_Image_2022-06-10_at_5.45.52_PM.jpeg) **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Based on startup file, can be reproduced by rerouting nodes as shown in the images above. The file showing the problem is provided below (but can be reproduced with any file): [Node Reroute.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13144074/Node_Reroute.blend)
Author

Added subscriber: @Joao-Generoso-Gonzales

Added subscriber: @Joao-Generoso-Gonzales
Member

Added subscriber: @lone_noel

Added subscriber: @lone_noel
Member

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Needs User Info'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Needs User Info'
Member

Hey, @Joao-Generoso-Gonzales! Thanks a lot for the report.

The change to the behavior of links connected to reroutes was actually intentional (see ee1d5fb9e4).
Blender's node trees strongly favor a left-to-right direction. The old behavior could cause issues where you had to adjust the reroute positioning to avoid kinks in the other wise smooth chain of node links, which would reduce readability.

Since we did discuss a few tradeoffs/edge cases similar to this during the review (D14457) , I'm tempted to close this as "Not a bug", but I think I would like someone else to chime in on this, as well.


While the provided screenshots nicely shows the edge case in isolation, it is a bit artificial. Could you maybe show an actual node setup, where this is an issue?
The main goal of the change was to make laying out the average node tree in a readable manner easier. So seeing a real situation, where the new behavior poses problems would help us decide, if this is something that needs be addressed.

Hey, @Joao-Generoso-Gonzales! Thanks a lot for the report. The change to the behavior of links connected to reroutes was actually intentional (see ee1d5fb9e467). Blender's node trees strongly favor a left-to-right direction. The old behavior could cause issues where you had to adjust the reroute positioning to avoid kinks in the other wise smooth chain of node links, which would reduce readability. Since we did discuss a few tradeoffs/edge cases similar to this during the review ([D14457](https://archive.blender.org/developer/D14457)) , I'm tempted to close this as "Not a bug", but I think I would like someone else to chime in on this, as well. --- While the provided screenshots nicely shows the edge case in isolation, it is a bit artificial. Could you maybe show an actual node setup, where this is an issue? The main goal of the change was to make laying out the average node tree in a readable manner easier. So seeing a real situation, where the new behavior poses problems would help us decide, if this is something that needs be addressed.
Author

Hello, @lone_noel !

Here are some screenshots of more complex node trees where this change affected the readability:

I believe the worst case is indeed when you need to connect multiple paths vertically, as seen below:
Before:
image.png
After:
image.png

In this particular case, there are some parts of the node tree that redirect the path backwards, which has broken the path:
Before:
image.png
After:
image.png
In this case, I tried to "unroll" the node tree, removing the backwards parts and this was the result:
image.png
It's not particularly breaking, but it has reduced the ability to organize node trees in more ways than just horizontally and fowards, which can be limiting in more complex cases, as shown above. If the team reaches the conclusion the new method if prefered, maybe a setting to use the old one could be added?

Hello, @lone_noel ! Here are some screenshots of more complex node trees where this change affected the readability: I believe the worst case is indeed when you need to connect multiple paths vertically, as seen below: Before: ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13147058/image.png) After: ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13147047/image.png) In this particular case, there are some parts of the node tree that redirect the path backwards, which has broken the path: Before: ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13147012/image.png) After: ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13146992/image.png) In this case, I tried to "unroll" the node tree, removing the backwards parts and this was the result: ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13147146/image.png) It's not particularly breaking, but it has reduced the ability to organize node trees in more ways than just horizontally and fowards, which can be limiting in more complex cases, as shown above. If the team reaches the conclusion the new method if prefered, maybe a setting to use the old one could be added?
Author

One more common example I'd like to add is a simple case of redirecting nodes backwards, which is useful in a lot of cases but can't be properly used with the new system.
Redirecting backwards breaks the noodle, resulting in a section weirdly pointing fowards. This effect is stronger the longer the noodle is.
image.png

One more common example I'd like to add is a simple case of redirecting nodes backwards, which is useful in a lot of cases but can't be properly used with the new system. Redirecting backwards breaks the noodle, resulting in a section weirdly pointing fowards. This effect is stronger the longer the noodle is. ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13408292/image.png)
Member

Changed status from 'Needs User Info' to: 'Needs Triage'

Changed status from 'Needs User Info' to: 'Needs Triage'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Needs Developer To Reproduce'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Needs Developer To Reproduce'
Member

Changed status from 'Needs Developer To Reproduce' to: 'Archived'

Changed status from 'Needs Developer To Reproduce' to: 'Archived'
Member

Added subscriber: @pablovazquez

Added subscriber: @pablovazquez
Member

Sorry for taking so long to get back at you, @Joao-Generoso-Gonzales! I admittedly dragged my feet on this quite a bit, since I had hoped to come up with something clever. So thanks for your patience.

I checked in with @pablovazquez and he agreed that node trees are predominantly read left-to-right and the issue with the vertical node links as described in the report is kinda expected. Since we won't reintroduce vertical connections which is the issue presented in the original report, I'm closing this task.


But Pablo also agreed that the situation shown in this screenshot isn't great and should be addressed, since setting up this type of connection with straight links looks fine:
Screenshot from 2022-08-22 23-24-36.png
After trying a few things I think I found something that works well without being messy. So I'll prepare a patch in the next few days. Here's a preview of the solution I have in mind:

patch_04.png
I'd be happy over feedback from you, once I have the patch up.

Sorry for taking so long to get back at you, @Joao-Generoso-Gonzales! I admittedly dragged my feet on this quite a bit, since I had hoped to come up with something clever. So thanks for your patience. I checked in with @pablovazquez and he agreed that node trees are predominantly read left-to-right and the issue with the vertical node links as described in the report is kinda expected. Since we won't reintroduce vertical connections which is the issue presented in the original report, I'm closing this task. --- But Pablo also agreed that the situation shown in this screenshot isn't great and should be addressed, since setting up this type of connection with straight links looks fine: ![Screenshot from 2022-08-22 23-24-36.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13507830/Screenshot_from_2022-08-22_23-24-36.png) After trying a few things I think I found something that works well without being messy. So I'll prepare a patch in the next few days. Here's a preview of the solution I have in mind: ![patch_04.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13508422/patch_04.png) I'd be happy over feedback from you, once I have the patch up.
Author

Hello @lone_noel!

Thanks for looking at the problem. This solution you presented seems great, very clever! I'll be glad to look at the patch once it's done, please let me know on this post when it's ready for testing!

I'm sad vertical connections got ditched, but it's understandable, Thank you for considering it.

Hello @lone_noel! Thanks for looking at the problem. This solution you presented seems great, very clever! I'll be glad to look at the patch once it's done, please let me know on this post when it's ready for testing! I'm sad vertical connections got ditched, but it's understandable, Thank you for considering it.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
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
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info 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
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#98779
No description provided.