Nodes for modifiers.

Hey,
Anyone tought about this? It’d be pretty damn useful. For example all the images (colour correction and stuff), then randomizing objects with displacements, all sorts of values changes with bitmap images well and tons of other useful stuff would come in with modifiers nodes. Anyone want this or is it just me?


Was worked on. Never finished.

They’d be terrific. They aren’t abandoned, I suppose just being worked on on and off due to his todos.

This is the most recent I can find

Every new modifier/node thing inches Blender towards a fully non-destructive procedural worklow nirvana. For references, have a look at some Houdini tutorials (before watching them, put on the floor a container to receive your jaw, you will need it :evilgrin:).

Well I didn’t knew that it was already worked on. The community needs to now the need for this, so lets vote! :smiley:

“Need” is a big word. There is a difference between “need” and “Want”.

I agree. But the point is clear for everyone.

Just to note, everybody here (users and devs) know about the potential of “node based something” (modifiers, particles, shaders…name it), these votes would not speedup anything.

Maybe, then let’s keep it up and support it.

Having modifier nodes would be the biggest advancement to Blender’s non destructive workflow since the initial introduction of modifiers.

It would then be possible to say…

  • Have multiple layers done through the solidify modifier (modifying just the base instead of the second modifying the first and so on)
  • Create a star-shaped array using multiple array modifiers (because the arrays will not be arrayed)
  • Procedural boolean object generation much like that powerful new plugin available for Modo.
  • ect…

In a way, this would be at its most useful when using constructive operations (allowing for much more complexity in parametric shapes).

As a avid Houdini user, I can honestly say nothing beats nodes for flexibility. The most important thing to get right about nodes is evaluation time for individual nodes and also dependency graph controls (Houdini has locks on nodes as well as update controls for the whole graphs). The way state is kept up to date in Blender is troublesome with modifiers and would be even more with blocking graph nodes. I think this may change soon though.

Another cool feature would be node assets. Like you create a group of nodes, give it a name and put it to a librarary. Then later on you can just get back to the asset and use it somewhere. That’d be cool. Same with meshes.

Would modifier nodes be nice? Yep. Do we actually need them? Nah.
Can anyone point to something that can’t be done without them? As opposed to just being more comfortable or nondestructive.

Read all the posts before replying.

I lack words appropriate to comment such monstrous statement.

Another cool feature would be node assets. Like you create a group of nodes, give it a name and put it to a librarary. Then later on you can just get back to the asset and use it somewhere. That’d be cool. Same with meshes.

You can already do that.
Put your group nodes into one .blend file, then just use “append” to get them from there…

I know that isn’t perfect.
A proper asset manager is one of the main goals of Gooseberry, as far as I know.

The examples I listed can’t actually be done with the existing stack, because each modifier added can only work on the already modified result rather than choose from any derivative throughout the stack.

Statements like these has historically been a factor that tries to encourage Blender being held back, it was the same way with arguments against GI, shading nodes, and Ngons. If this ends up being like most situations, the critics will silence themselves for the most part after they get their hands on the actual feature.

moving workflows into a single panel is always a good idea, if you can make it not cluttered,

Nodes are in fact a re-configurable UI, and you can connect properties/variables/etc to them…

Freemind, yes you can and you can copy meshes, but is that simple or good to use? No. So having an assets librarary would be so nice!!! Oh and imagine if you could just simply manipulate the stuff like array modifiers, shape keys just when adding it. I mean the way some game engines do it. So called blueprints. For example same mesh could come with a light source, different material presets, different modifications and much more. That would insanely improve architecture design.

I’m for, what AceDragon lukas and Nikitron achieved now, is really a good start.