blender/blender
148
472
Fork 692
Code Issues 6.7k Pull Requests 894 Projects 18 Wiki Activity

Geometry Nodes: Is Edit Mode Node #106970

Closed
DorianB wants to merge 5 commits from dodododorian/blender:main into main
pull from: dodododorian/blender:main
merge into: blender:main

When changing the target branch, be careful to rebase the branch in your fork to match. See documentation.
Conversation 9 Commits 5 Files Changed 7 +38
DorianB commented 2023-04-14 21:20:24 +02:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

This patch adds a new "Is Edit Mode" node for evaluating if the self_object() is in edit mode. This is useful for GeometryNode creators to optimize their node tree when the node-group user is editing the base mesh.

This idea was requested by my collaborator Baga, his generator is heavy, and he would like to turn down some settings when his users are editing their base mesh.Example.

Status: Finished, Awaiting Design Approval

Two alternative design have been proposed:

  • Add new string output in the already existing object info node (mockup below)
  • replace "IsEditMode" with "IsObjectMode"

This patch adds a new "_Is Edit Mode_" node for evaluating if the `self_object()` is in edit mode. This is useful for GeometryNode creators to optimize their node tree when the node-group user is editing the base mesh. This idea was requested by my collaborator [Baga](https://twitter.com/BagattiniAntoi1/status/1646554445306556416), his generator is heavy, and he would like to turn down some settings when his users are editing their base mesh.[Example.](https://twitter.com/BagattiniAntoi1/status/1649413332988837888?s=20) ### <u>Status:</u> Finished, Awaiting Design Approval Two alternative design have been proposed: - Add new string output in the already existing object info node (mockup below) - replace "IsEditMode" with "IsObjectMode" <br>
download.png
11 KiB
download.png
👍 10 👀 4 ❤️ 8 🎉 4 🚀 4
DorianB added 3 commits 2023-04-14 21:20:35 +02:00
DorianB requested review from Hans Goudey 2023-04-14 21:22:36 +02:00
DorianB reviewed 2023-04-14 21:23:46 +02:00
README.md Outdated
@ -35,4 +35,4 @@ License
Blender as a whole is licensed under the GNU General Public License, Version 3.
Individual files may have a different, but compatible license.
See [blender.org/about/license](https://www.blender.org/about/license) for details.
DorianB commented 2023-04-14 21:23:46 +02:00
Author
First-time contributor
Copy Link

This was not intentional. Don't understand why it was picked up by gitea as a change

This was not intentional. Don't understand why it was picked up by gitea as a change
Daniel Salazar commented 2023-04-15 00:36:43 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

In that case update your PR please :)

In that case update your PR please :)
DorianB commented 2023-04-15 00:49:28 +02:00
Author
First-time contributor
Copy Link

Thanks, I used to submit .diff files, everything was much simpler back then.
How can i tell gitea to ignore the "changes" of README.md ?

Thanks, I used to submit .diff files, everything was **_much_** simpler back then. How can i tell gitea to ignore the "_changes_" of README.md ?
Daniel Salazar commented 2023-04-15 00:59:17 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

Check out your branch, make the change, commit and push again to the same PR.

Instructions are here

Check out your branch, make the change, commit and push again to the same PR. Instructions are [here](https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Tools/Pull_Requests)
👍 1 ❤️ 1
dodododorian marked this conversation as resolved
DorianB changed title from WIP: GeometryNode IsEditMode Node to GeometryNode IsEditMode Node 2023-04-14 21:30:45 +02:00
DorianB changed title from GeometryNode IsEditMode Node to GeometryNode IsEditMode Node 2023-04-14 21:30:46 +02:00
DorianB changed title from GeometryNode IsEditMode Node to GeometryNode IsEditMode Node 2023-04-14 21:30:46 +02:00
Hans Goudey changed title from GeometryNode IsEditMode Node to Geometry Nodes: Is Edit Mode Node 2023-04-14 21:34:41 +02:00
DorianB added 1 commit 2023-04-15 01:13:46 +02:00
DorianB added 1 commit 2023-04-15 01:32:24 +02:00
Soeren Schmidt-Clausen commented 2023-04-17 22:37:01 +02:00
Contributor
Copy Link

Hi, I hope this gets through. I have one concern though. Some Geometry Node systems depend on different objects. With this node you can only check for the object, where the modifier is on. For example the new hair system could not take advantage of this. Maybe add an Object as Input? Though this would make it similar to my approach, which was rejected #106305

Hi, I hope this gets through. I have one concern though. Some Geometry Node systems depend on different objects. With this node you can only check for the object, where the modifier is on. For example the new hair system could not take advantage of this. Maybe add an Object as Input? Though this would make it similar to my approach, which was rejected #106305
DorianB commented 2023-04-17 23:36:51 +02:00
Author
First-time contributor
Copy Link

Hi, I hope this gets through. I have one concern though. Some Geometry Node systems depend on different objects. With this node you can only check for the object, where the modifier is on. For example the new hair system could not take advantage of this. Maybe add an Object as Input? Though this would make it similar to my approach, which was rejected https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/106305.

Hi, I agree it won't be able to cover standalone "empty" objects. Personally, I would much prefer to have a powerful flexible node that could access any data contained within the .blend the user could think of, such as 106989 or my Python Api node.

For example, here's a user optimizing his experience with some simple Python API call. users_optimizing_his_scene.mp4 Proposing flexibility is important, the users are not predictable.

But well, that's up to the design team.

PS: link is broken

> Hi, I hope this gets through. I have one concern though. Some Geometry Node systems depend on different objects. With this node you can only check for the object, where the modifier is on. For example the new hair system could not take advantage of this. Maybe add an Object as Input? Though this would make it similar to my approach, which was rejected [https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/106305](url). Hi, I agree it won't be able to cover standalone "empty" objects. Personally, I would much prefer to have a powerful flexible node that could access any data contained within the .blend the user could think of, such as [106989](https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/106989) or my [Python Api](https://devtalk.blender.org/t/extra-nodes-for-geometrynodes/20942) node. For example, here's a user optimizing his experience with some simple Python API call. ![users_optimizing_his_scene.mp4](https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/106970/attachments/6adb0d0a-30fc-4724-8470-26128695c865) Proposing flexibility is important, the users are <u>**not**</u> predictable. But well, that's up to the design team. PS: link is broken
2021-12-12 10-28-26.mp4
8.3 MiB
Soeren Schmidt-Clausen commented 2023-04-18 11:29:59 +02:00
Contributor
Copy Link

Hi, I hope this gets through. I have one concern though. Some Geometry Node systems depend on different objects. With this node you can only check for the object, where the modifier is on. For example the new hair system could not take advantage of this. Maybe add an Object as Input? Though this would make it similar to my approach, which was rejected https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/106305.

Hi, I agree it won't be able to cover standalone "empty" objects. Personally, I would much prefer to have a powerful flexible node that could access any data contained within the .blend the user could think of, such as 106989 or my Python Api node. But well, that's up to the design team.

By the way, what if your patch outputted a string and not an enum int? Maybe that could get a pass
PS: link is broken

I agree, this would be amazing. Link should be fixed. It would be an option, but sadly i think it wasn't rejected because of the output type:

It's honestly a bit unlikely that we'll allow accessing the mode like this, because it's not really something that the procedural setup should depend on. For the time being I'd recommend people to just expose a "Fast Mode" boolean as group input that can be controlled from the modifier or so.

Originally posted by @JacquesLucke in /blender/blender/pulls/106305#issuecomment-911946

> > Hi, I hope this gets through. I have one concern though. Some Geometry Node systems depend on different objects. With this node you can only check for the object, where the modifier is on. For example the new hair system could not take advantage of this. Maybe add an Object as Input? Though this would make it similar to my approach, which was rejected [https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/106305](url). > > Hi, I agree it won't be able to cover standalone "empty" objects. Personally, I would much prefer to have a powerful flexible node that could access any data contained within the .blend the user could think of, such as [106989](https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/106989) or my [Python Api](https://devtalk.blender.org/t/extra-nodes-for-geometrynodes/20942) node. But well, that's up to the design team. > > By the way, what if your patch outputted a string and not an enum int? Maybe that could get a pass > PS: link is broken I agree, this would be amazing. Link should be fixed. It would be an option, but sadly i think it wasn't rejected because of the output type: > It's honestly a bit unlikely that we'll allow accessing the mode like this, because it's not really something that the procedural setup should depend on. For the time being I'd recommend people to just expose a "Fast Mode" boolean as group input that can be controlled from the modifier or so. _Originally posted by @JacquesLucke in /blender/blender/pulls/106305#issuecomment-911946_
DorianB requested review from Simon Thommes 2023-04-18 20:30:31 +02:00
DorianB commented 2023-04-19 21:25:30 +02:00
Author
First-time contributor
Copy Link

Alternative proposal:

Extending object info mode with additional information.
Similar to #106305 but with a few new string outputs instead of an non-user friendly integer

img

@Hans The "name" field has come up a bunch of times, but it doesn't work with the depsgraph (yet), unless we want to reevaluate all modifiers when changing the name of any object

Note that the name is not currently supported by geonode depsgraph, but i don't see why it's a big deal to re-evaluate node on rename, rename operations arent't that common

### **Alternative proposal**: Extending object info mode with additional information. Similar to https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/106305 but with a few new string outputs instead of an non-user friendly integer ![img](https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/106970/attachments/48ebcc37-42f1-4a97-bc39-45ee1b58f358) > @Hans The "name" field has come up a bunch of times, but it doesn't work with the depsgraph (yet), unless we want to reevaluate all modifiers when changing the name of any object Note that the name is not currently supported by geonode depsgraph, but i don't see why it's a big deal to re-evaluate node on rename, rename operations arent't that common
Screenshot 2023-04-19 212216.jpg
54 KiB
👍 1 ❤️ 1
Antoine_Bagattini commented 2023-04-20 13:12:54 +02:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

@dodododorian thanks for the proposal !

It will help optimize performance and enhance the user experience when editing base meshes, especially in large node trees that can be laggy.
Most criticisms directed at this proposal can also be applied to the existing "Is Viewport" node.

The alternative proposal is interesting, but an "Is Edit Mode" node is more consistent with the existing "Is Viewport" node.
An "Is Object Mode" node might be even more desirable, as it could take into account sculpt, edit mode, and other modes.

@dodododorian thanks for the proposal ! It will help optimize performance and enhance the user experience when editing base meshes, especially in large node trees that can be laggy. Most criticisms directed at this proposal can also be applied to the existing "Is Viewport" node. The alternative proposal is interesting, but an "Is Edit Mode" node is more consistent with the existing "Is Viewport" node. An "Is Object Mode" node might be even more desirable, as it could take into account sculpt, edit mode, and other modes.
Soeren Schmidt-Clausen commented 2023-04-20 14:54:46 +02:00
Contributor
Copy Link

@Antoine_Bagattini

Is it bad, when different nodes return similar things? Because then we could do a Is Object Mode Node. And maybe laiter add more properties to the object info node, like in the alternative proposial. This would keep it "beginner" friendly, but also give the option for more detailed settings. But I could also imagine, that this would make blender "bloated".

@Antoine_Bagattini Is it bad, when different nodes return similar things? Because then we could do a Is Object Mode Node. And maybe laiter add more properties to the object info node, like in the alternative proposial. This would keep it "beginner" friendly, but also give the option for more detailed settings. But I could also imagine, that this would make blender "bloated".
DorianB commented 2023-04-20 16:21:14 +02:00
Author
First-time contributor
Copy Link

but also give the option for more detailed settings

The object-mode information as a string output in the object-info node proposal is more flexible & elegant than a simple boolean input IMO

Advantages:

  • Added behavior control on other modes
  • Added behavior control on the object source, where the initial proposal is only compatible with self object.
  • More compact solution ( there's already a lot of nodes )
  • The mode state is an object information, it makes sense to be shown in the object info node
  • Gives us the opportunity to propose more string information about the object, such as the name and object type

Inconvenience:

  • Users will need to conntect an extra self object node and an extra string compare node
> but also give the option for more detailed settings The object-mode information as a string output in the object-info node proposal is more flexible & elegant than a simple boolean input IMO Advantages: - Added behavior control on other modes - Added behavior control on the object source, where the initial proposal is only compatible with self object. - More compact solution ( there's already a lot of nodes ) - The mode state is an object information, it makes sense to be shown in the object info node - Gives us the opportunity to propose more string information about the object, such as the name and object type Inconvenience: - Users will need to conntect an extra self object node and an extra string compare node
Antoine_Bagattini commented 2023-04-21 12:58:59 +02:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

Is it bad, when different nodes return similar things?

Not really. I believe that the 'Is Object Mode' node is the best solution.

Alternative proposal:

Extending object info mode with additional information.
Similar to #106305 but with a few new string outputs instead of an non-user friendly integer

img

It's really nice, but the 'Is Object Mode' is more consistent and easier to use.

> Is it bad, when different nodes return similar things? Not really. I believe that the 'Is Object Mode' node is the best solution. > ### **Alternative proposal**: > > Extending object info mode with additional information. > Similar to https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/106305 but with a few new string outputs instead of an non-user friendly integer > > ![img](https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/106970/attachments/48ebcc37-42f1-4a97-bc39-45ee1b58f358) It's really nice, but the 'Is Object Mode' is more consistent and easier to use.
Hans Goudey commented 2024-01-19 20:00:36 +01:00
Member
Copy Link

I realize it's been quite a while, but we did talk about this towards the end of last year. Our conclusion that "Is Edit Mode" isn't the right name or abstraction for this sort of check, but overall this sort of functionality would be nice.

A global "interactivity level" similar to the scene simplify settings would generalize better. This could be automatically set, controlled by addons, or adjusted directly by the user, and readable in geometry nodes. It's also potentially related to the "Is Viewport" node. If there was someone willing to spend time implementing a design like that, we could spend time talking about it more and getting to the specifics.

However, it's clear the design proposed here isn't quite what we'd go for in the end, so I'll close this PR.

I realize it's been quite a while, but we did talk about this towards the end of last year. Our conclusion that "Is Edit Mode" isn't the right name or abstraction for this sort of check, but overall this sort of functionality would be nice. A global "interactivity level" similar to the scene simplify settings would generalize better. This could be automatically set, controlled by addons, or adjusted directly by the user, and readable in geometry nodes. It's also potentially related to the "Is Viewport" node. If there was someone willing to spend time implementing a design like that, we could spend time talking about it more and getting to the specifics. However, it's clear the design proposed here isn't quite what we'd go for in the end, so I'll close this PR.
👎 1
Hans Goudey closed this pull request 2024-01-19 20:00:38 +01:00

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Hans Goudey
Simon Thommes
Labels
Clear labels   
Interest
Alembic

  
Interest
Animation & Rigging

  
Interest
Asset System
Asset datablocks, libraries, browser and shelf

  
Interest
Audio

  
Interest
Automated Testing

  
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle

  
Interest
BlendFile

  
Interest
Collada

  
Interest
Compatibility
Backward and forward compatibility

  
Interest
Compositing

  
Interest
Core

  
Interest
Cycles

  
Interest
Dependency Graph

  
Interest
Development Management

  
Interest
EEVEE

  
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
Viewport & EEVEE

  
Interest
Virtual Reality

  
Interest
Vulkan

  
Interest
Wayland
Wayland windowing on Unix

  
Interest
Workbench

  
Interest: X11

Xorg/X11 windowing

  
Legacy
Asset Browser Project

Archived

  
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project

Archived

  
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser

Archived

  
Legacy
OpenGL Error

Archived

  
Meta
Good First Issue

  
Meta
Papercut

  
Meta
Retrospective

  
Meta
Security
Related to security, https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Process/Vulnerability_Reports

  
Module
Animation & Rigging

  
Module
Core

  
Module
Development Management

  
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

  
Module
Viewport & EEVEE

  
Platform
FreeBSD

  
Platform
Linux

  
Platform
macOS

  
Platform
Windows

  
Severity
High

  
Severity
Low

  
Severity
Normal

  
Severity
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

Archived

  
Type
Report

Archived

  
Type
To Do

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
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
Viewport & EEVEE
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
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
Module
Viewport & EEVEE
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Severity
High
Severity
Low
Severity
Normal
Severity
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
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
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#106970
No description provided.
Delete Branch "dodododorian/blender:main"

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?