Geometry Nodes: new Axes to Rotation node #104416

Merged
Jacques Lucke merged 32 commits from JacquesLucke/blender:axis-to-euler into main 2024-05-08 13:34:26 +02:00
Member

This adds a new Axes to Rotation node which creates a new rotation. In many cases, the primary and secondary axis inputs are a normal and tangent of a mesh or curve. This provides a simpler and more direct way to create this rotation compared to using two Align Euler to Vector nodes.

This more direct way of computing the rotation also allows us to optimize the case better.

The node rotates one axis (X, Y or Z) to the given primary axis direction. Then it rotates around that primary direction to align the second axis to the given secondary direction. Ideally, both input axes are orthogonal. However, the node still creates the "best" rotation when they are not orthogonal. If one or the axes is zero or both are (close to) parallel, the resulting rotation is unstable. There is not too much the node can do to make it more stable.

image

This adds a new `Axes to Rotation` node which creates a new rotation. In many cases, the primary and secondary axis inputs are a normal and tangent of a mesh or curve. This provides a simpler and more direct way to create this rotation compared to using two `Align Euler to Vector` nodes. This more direct way of computing the rotation also allows us to optimize the case better. The node rotates one axis (X, Y or Z) to the given primary axis direction. Then it rotates around that primary direction to align the second axis to the given secondary direction. Ideally, both input axes are orthogonal. However, the node still creates the "best" rotation when they are not orthogonal. If one or the axes is zero or both are (close to) parallel, the resulting rotation is unstable. There is not too much the node can do to make it more stable. ![image](/attachments/931d41ab-1673-4cb6-8125-f851f966e421)
Jacques Lucke added 12 commits 2023-02-07 18:34:19 +01:00
Jacques Lucke added 1 commit 2023-02-07 18:38:32 +01:00
Jacques Lucke requested review from Hans Goudey 2023-02-07 19:24:05 +01:00
Jacques Lucke requested review from Simon Thommes 2023-02-07 19:25:40 +01:00
Hans Goudey reviewed 2023-02-07 20:46:52 +01:00
Hans Goudey left a comment
Member

The code looks relatively straightforward. Assuming this works for Simon, this looks good to go.

The code looks relatively straightforward. Assuming this works for Simon, this looks good to go.
@ -9901,0 +9922,4 @@
RNA_def_property_ui_text(
prop,
"Secondary Axis",
"Axis that is aligned as good as possible given the alignment of the primary axis");
Member

as good -> as well

`as good` -> `as well`
JacquesLucke marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +38,4 @@
uiItemR(layout, ptr, "secondary_axis", UI_ITEM_R_EXPAND, nullptr, ICON_NONE);
if (storage.primary_axis == storage.secondary_axis) {
uiItemL(layout, N_("Must not be equal"), ICON_ERROR);
Member

Must not be equal -> Axes must not be equal

Just reads a bit better IMO

`Must not be equal` -> `Axes must not be equal` Just reads a bit better IMO
JacquesLucke marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +70,4 @@
/* Through cancellation this will set the last axis to be the one that's neither the primary
* nor secondary axis. */
tertiary_axis_ = (0 + 1 + 2) - primary_axis - secondary_axis;
Member

Ooh, clever!

Ooh, clever!
JacquesLucke marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +94,4 @@
const float tertiary_factor = invert_tertiary ? -1.0f : 1.0f;
for (const int64_t i : mask) {
float3 primary = math::normalize(primaries[i]);
Member

Not asking for any changes here, but it would be nice if we could build function nodes with multiple multi-functions. In this case we could split the normalization of primaries and secondaries to separate functions. Later on we could implement an optimization pass that removes sequential normalization functions.

I guess that might be possible with some improvements to NodeMultiFunctionBuilder?

Not asking for any changes here, but it would be nice if we could build function nodes with multiple multi-functions. In this case we could split the normalization of `primaries` and `secondaries` to separate functions. Later on we could implement an optimization pass that removes sequential normalization functions. I guess that might be possible with some improvements to `NodeMultiFunctionBuilder`?
JacquesLucke marked this conversation as resolved
Hans Goudey approved these changes 2023-02-07 21:12:54 +01:00
Hans Goudey left a comment
Member

.

.
Jacques Lucke changed title from Geometry Nodes: new Axis to Euler node to Geometry Nodes: New Axis to Euler node 2023-02-08 12:40:30 +01:00
Jacques Lucke changed title from Geometry Nodes: New Axis to Euler node to Geometry Nodes: new Axis to Euler node 2023-02-08 12:40:43 +01:00
Simon Thommes requested changes 2023-02-10 12:36:53 +01:00
Dismissed
Simon Thommes left a comment
Member

Seems good to me overall I tested some corner cases, where I think the behaviour could be different.

When primary and secondary axis are parallel, it should probably ignore the secondary axis entirely. At least I don't see a reason, why it would have any particular impact.

When using only the secondary axis as an input it would make sense to me to rotate first around what is selected as primary axis. Right now it seems a bit random to me, not sure of the logic behind it right now.

e.g. this shouldn't result in any rotation imo
image

Seems good to me overall I tested some corner cases, where I think the behaviour could be different. When primary and secondary axis are parallel, it should probably ignore the secondary axis entirely. At least I don't see a reason, why it would have any particular impact. When using only the secondary axis as an input it would make sense to me to rotate first around what is selected as primary axis. Right now it seems a bit random to me, not sure of the logic behind it right now. e.g. this shouldn't result in any rotation imo ![image](/attachments/a8d55d6e-aaff-42bd-8857-e8314efa8fe1)
Brecht Van Lommel added this to the Nodes & Physics project 2023-02-13 09:19:22 +01:00
Hans Goudey added this to the 4.0 milestone 2023-06-15 20:31:00 +02:00
Hans Goudey requested changes 2023-06-15 20:31:45 +02:00
Hans Goudey left a comment
Member

With the rotation socket in 4.0, we have another opportunity to add this node. But it needs to be updated for that.

With the rotation socket in 4.0, we have another opportunity to add this node. But it needs to be updated for that.
Hans Goudey added 2 commits 2023-12-12 20:48:56 +01:00
Hans Goudey added 1 commit 2023-12-12 20:49:39 +01:00
Hans Goudey added 1 commit 2023-12-12 20:51:10 +01:00
Hans Goudey removed this from the 4.0 milestone 2023-12-12 20:52:15 +01:00

What about default values for inputs:

  • Primary Axis: 1.0, 0.0, 0.0.
  • Secondary Axis: 0.0, 1.0, 0.0.

This will let to use this node in simple cases without additional value nodes (or maybe better to not hide values of inputs?).

What about default values for inputs: - `Primary Axis`: `1.0, 0.0, 0.0`. - `Secondary Axis`: `0.0, 1.0, 0.0`. This will let to use this node in simple cases without additional value nodes (or maybe better to not hide values of inputs?).
Hans Goudey added 6 commits 2024-02-14 16:18:29 +01:00
Jacques Lucke changed title from Geometry Nodes: new Axis to Euler node to Geometry Nodes: new Axes to Rotation node 2024-02-15 11:31:10 +01:00
Jacques Lucke added 1 commit 2024-02-22 19:01:29 +01:00
Jacques Lucke added 3 commits 2024-02-22 19:33:41 +01:00
Author
Member

When primary and secondary axis are parallel, it should probably ignore the secondary axis entirely. At least I don't see a reason, why it would have any particular impact.

This is somewhat tricky. Due to floating point math, it's hard to distinguish the case when both are parallel reliably. We'd have to use some epsilon, which might not work in all cases and can potentially also have undesired effects. The case when both are (almost) parallel is just very unstable, not sure if we can prevent that in practice.

When using only the secondary axis as an input it would make sense to me to rotate first around what is selected as primary axis. Right now it seems a bit random to me, not sure of the logic behind it right now.
e.g. this shouldn't result in any rotation imo

I think this resulted in a rotation because the default for the primary axis was the X axis. Now I changed it so that by default the node does nothing. So the setup in your image should also do nothing then. I also made both inputs non-hidden again. Seems wrong to hide inputs whose values are important and that can make sense to modify manually.

> When primary and secondary axis are parallel, it should probably ignore the secondary axis entirely. At least I don't see a reason, why it would have any particular impact. This is somewhat tricky. Due to floating point math, it's hard to distinguish the case when both are parallel reliably. We'd have to use some epsilon, which might not work in all cases and can potentially also have undesired effects. The case when both are (almost) parallel is just very unstable, not sure if we can prevent that in practice. > When using only the secondary axis as an input it would make sense to me to rotate first around what is selected as primary axis. Right now it seems a bit random to me, not sure of the logic behind it right now. > e.g. this shouldn't result in any rotation imo I think this resulted in a rotation because the default for the primary axis was the X axis. Now I changed it so that by default the node does nothing. So the setup in your image should also do nothing then. I also made both inputs non-hidden again. Seems wrong to hide inputs whose values are important and that can make sense to modify manually.
Hans Goudey approved these changes 2024-02-23 17:36:09 +01:00
Hans Goudey left a comment
Member

I'm happy with the code now. No strong opinion, but didn't we talk about hiding the value of the first vector but not the second?

I'm happy with the code now. No strong opinion, but didn't we talk about hiding the value of the first vector but not the second?
@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
Member

Missing copyright info

Missing copyright info
JacquesLucke marked this conversation as resolved
Author
Member

No strong opinion, but didn't we talk about hiding the value of the first vector but not the second?

Yeah, we did. However, I changed my mind on that because of the Simon's screenshot. This wouldn't have been an issue if the input value is not hidden.

> No strong opinion, but didn't we talk about hiding the value of the first vector but not the second? Yeah, we did. However, I changed my mind on that because of the Simon's screenshot. This wouldn't have been an issue if the input value is not hidden.
Jacques Lucke added 2 commits 2024-02-26 12:18:17 +01:00
update copyright info
Some checks failed
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-windows-amd64 Build done.
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-coordinator Build done.
cd12ea9073
Author
Member

@blender-bot build

@blender-bot build
Iliya Katushenock reviewed 2024-04-27 15:50:36 +02:00
@ -0,0 +124,4 @@
mat[primary_axis_.as_int()] = primary;
mat[secondary_axis_.as_int()] = secondary;
mat[tertiary_axis_.as_int()] = tertiary_factor * tertiary;
BLI_assert(math::is_orthonormal(mat));

I getting this assertion for just 2 vectors.

I getting this assertion for just 2 vectors.
Author
Member

Can you provide a concrete example where you get this error?

Can you provide a concrete example where you get this error?

If without build, this was something like that\ (probably mesh can be arbirtary)
image

If without build, this was something like that\ (probably mesh can be arbirtary) ![image](/attachments/d4362bf7-95e1-4314-b2dc-08b1c3b33793)
113 KiB
Author
Member

Can't reproduce it right now, it would be really useful if you could provide a .blend file..

Can't reproduce it right now, it would be really useful if you could provide a .blend file..

Also cant reproduce this now\

Also cant reproduce this now\
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
Iliya Katushenock reviewed 2024-04-27 16:41:21 +02:00
@ -0,0 +35,4 @@
uiItemR(layout, ptr, "secondary_axis", UI_ITEM_R_EXPAND, nullptr, ICON_NONE);
if (node.custom1 == node.custom2) {
uiItemL(layout, N_("Axes must not be equal"), ICON_ERROR);

Still think its might be better to display error in node header as usual werning. Currently this message is not displayed on node group body for nested nodes.

Still think its might be better to display error in node header as usual werning. Currently this message is not displayed on node group body for nested nodes.
Author
Member

I moved it to an overlay. Report it as a proper error is a bit tricky right now, but also not super urgent I think. It's not something that can be triggered by group inputs.

I moved it to an overlay. Report it as a proper error is a bit tricky right now, but also not super urgent I think. It's not something that can be triggered by group inputs.
JacquesLucke marked this conversation as resolved
Jacques Lucke added 1 commit 2024-05-07 12:34:11 +02:00
Jacques Lucke added 1 commit 2024-05-07 12:45:34 +02:00
Iliya Katushenock reviewed 2024-05-07 13:10:08 +02:00
@ -0,0 +31,4 @@
static void node_layout(uiLayout *layout, bContext * /*C*/, PointerRNA *ptr)
{
const bNode &node = *static_cast<const bNode *>(ptr->data);

Now unused.

Now unused.
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
Jacques Lucke added 1 commit 2024-05-07 13:35:54 +02:00
Jacques Lucke requested review from Simon Thommes 2024-05-07 13:43:24 +02:00
Simon Thommes approved these changes 2024-05-08 12:59:46 +02:00
Simon Thommes left a comment
Member

Looks good to me, I agree with the decision to expose both axes fully

Looks good to me, I agree with the decision to expose both axes fully
Jacques Lucke merged commit 25c134fd08 into main 2024-05-08 13:34:26 +02:00
Jacques Lucke deleted branch axis-to-euler 2024-05-08 13:34:30 +02:00
First-time contributor

I just tried this out, and I couldn't be happier with how it came together! It's a game changer, thank you for implementing this. :)

I just tried this out, and I couldn't be happier with how it came together! It's a game changer, thank you for implementing this. :)
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset System
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
Asset Browser Project
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 Assignees
5 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#104416
No description provided.