Geometry Nodes: Add 'Fill Interior' option to Mesh to SDF Volume #107827

Erik Abrahamsson · 2023-05-11T00:36:10+02:00

Erik Abrahamsson commented

2023-05-11 00:36:10 +02:00

Adds an input socket 'Fill Interior' to the Mesh to SDF Volume node.
Enabling it will make the interior band fill the entire interior of the mesh.

This is useful for example to be able to use the Threshold of
'Volume to Mesh' smoothly all the way down until the mesh disappears
without needing to also increase the exterior band width.

Adds an input socket 'Fill Interior' to the Mesh to SDF Volume node. Enabling it will make the interior band fill the entire interior of the mesh. This is useful for example to be able to use the Threshold of 'Volume to Mesh' smoothly all the way down until the mesh disappears without needing to also increase the exterior band width. ![bild](/attachments/ebbd2e77-b1e9-4414-a33a-52dd0c818d19)

bild.png

28 KiB

Erik Abrahamsson added the

Module

Nodes & Physics

label 2023-05-11 00:36:10 +02:00

Erik Abrahamsson added 1 commit 2023-05-11 00:36:16 +02:00

281c785189 Geometry Nodes: Add 'Fill Interior' option to Mesh to SDF Volume

Adds an input socket 'Fill Interior to the Mesh to SDF Volume node.
This will make the interior band fill the entire interior of the mesh.
This is useful for example to be able to use the Threshold of
'Volume to Mesh' smoothly all the way down until the mesh disappears
without needing to also increase the exterior band width.

Erik Abrahamsson requested review from Hans Goudey 2023-05-11 00:36:52 +02:00

Hans Goudey added this to the Nodes & Physics project 2023-05-11 03:01:05 +02:00

Hans Goudey reviewed 2023-05-11 03:12:47 +02:00

Hans Goudey left a comment

Just to be sure, the change from meshToLevelSet to meshToSignedDistanceField doesn't affect behavior here (assuming the new option is turned off). Intuitively that makes sense, but there are so many overloads in the OpenVDB header that it's hard to be sure.

I guess this is one case where the "SDF Volume" naming is better than "level set" since it gives more flexibility.

I do wonder about how this compares to exposing the inner and outer band widths as separate inputs and just requiring users to write some large number here. How did you decide to go for this option instead?

Just to be sure, the change from `meshToLevelSet` to `meshToSignedDistanceField` doesn't affect behavior here (assuming the new option is turned off). Intuitively that makes sense, but there are so many overloads in the OpenVDB header that it's hard to be sure. I guess this is one case where the "SDF Volume" naming is better than "level set" since it gives more flexibility. I do wonder about how this compares to exposing the inner and outer band widths as separate inputs and just requiring users to write some large number here. How did you decide to go for this option instead?

source/blender/nodes/geometry/nodes/node_geo_mesh_to_sdf_volume.cc

						
				@ -41,1 +41,4 @@

				      .max(10.0f);

				  b.add_input<decl::Bool>(N_("Fill Interior"))

				      .default_value(false)

				      .description(N_("Fill the entire interior of the mesh with distance values"));

Hans Goudey commented

2023-05-11 03:12:35 +02:00

Maybe "with distance values" could be more clear as "with a gradient" or something

Erik Abrahamsson commented

2023-05-11 19:47:34 +02:00

Just to be sure, the change from meshToLevelSet to meshToSignedDistanceField doesn't affect behavior here (assuming the new option is turned off). Intuitively that makes sense, but there are so many overloads in the OpenVDB header that it's hard to be sure.

As far as I can tell yes it's absolutely the same thing.

I do wonder about how this compares to exposing the inner and outer band widths as separate inputs and just requiring users to write some large number here. How did you decide to go for this option instead?

It feels a bit less intuitive to me that you need to enter a very large number to be sure that the whole gradient is filled. It could be an option to have both separate band widths and a fill option. I went for the simplest option because it feels like it's more common to need to fill the interior fully than set a specific number.

> Just to be sure, the change from `meshToLevelSet` to `meshToSignedDistanceField` doesn't affect behavior here (assuming the new option is turned off). Intuitively that makes sense, but there are so many overloads in the OpenVDB header that it's hard to be sure. As far as I can tell yes it's absolutely the same thing. > I do wonder about how this compares to exposing the inner and outer band widths as separate inputs and just requiring users to write some large number here. How did you decide to go for this option instead? It feels a bit less intuitive to me that you need to enter a very large number to be sure that the whole gradient is filled. It could be an option to have both separate band widths and a fill option. I went for the simplest option because it feels like it's more common to need to fill the interior fully than set a specific number.

Hans Goudey commented

2024-01-30 04:43:06 +01:00

The node has been removed in the meantime with the transition to the grid socket design. Better to reconsider this when the node is back. I'll close the PR.

Hans Goudey closed this pull request

2024-01-30 04:43:08 +01:00

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No reviewers

No Label

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Geometry Nodes: Add 'Fill Interior' option to Mesh to SDF Volume #107827

Pull request closed