Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Topology node #2522

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 7, 2019
Merged

Topology node #2522

merged 3 commits into from
Sep 7, 2019

Conversation

zeffii
Copy link
Collaborator

@zeffii zeffii commented Sep 7, 2019

simple topolgy input

image

@zeffii zeffii merged commit edc129b into b28_prelease_master Sep 7, 2019
@vicdoval
Copy link
Collaborator

vicdoval commented Sep 7, 2019

I couple of thoughts on this node:

The name seems a little confusing to me. Maybe Topology Input or "Manual Topology" or "Topology Dictator"

I don't see this node fitting in any of the actual SV categories. Maybe in the CAD (which is not very clear because everything Sverchok does is CAD) maybe that's why you opened #2523 .... Have you thought already a place for it?

@zeffii
Copy link
Collaborator Author

zeffii commented Sep 7, 2019

I want a topology category ( for UV Connection, disjoint_meshes ) -- but yeah, Topology Input Node seems an appropriate name.

The CAD category is an attempt to group those nodes that are close to singular CAD commands, like
Fillet/Chamfer, Radial Array, Bisect, CrossSection, Offset, Inset, Extrude, Bevel, Loft..... (these are very specific commands) ..

i'm not sure I understand the categorical difference between Modifers make / change , or the various List subcategories..

Best I can do is attempt to provide a menu (it could be an optional preference in toolbar ) that gives a different perspective on the categories.

@zeffii
Copy link
Collaborator Author

zeffii commented Sep 7, 2019

some of the new menu items could be Macro calls, for example we have no radial array node, so we could spawn a circle node + matrix apply -- maybe.

@vicdoval
Copy link
Collaborator

vicdoval commented Sep 8, 2019

some of the new menu items could be Macro calls, for example we have no radial array node, so we could spawn a circle node + matrix apply -- maybe.

This kind of behaviour would be very cool

I got the concept of the CAD category, but i thought the name was too wide..
The tools you refer are usually in the Modify section of many CAD tools and they usually include what you mentioned and
In 2D like LibreCad Move, Rotate, Scale and Mirror, Explode (could be Polygon Boom)
In ·3D like FreeCad Shear and Boolean Extrude, Matrix along Path
In some proprietary software 3d modeling (sweep, boolean, extrude) is a subcategory of Modify..

In Blender 2.79 we had Transforms separated and Mesh Tools with subcategories Deform, Add and Remove
In B28 there are some tools in the sidebar and after they are subdivided in Mesh, Vertex, Edge, Face with some commands repeated with subtle modifications (for example Bevel is in vertex and edges)

The B28 approach i guess would be better integrated with the environment but I think it would require the idea of having macros/operators in the menu for some items (Bevel Vertices in Vertex and Bevel Edges in Edges)

The B279 could be nice and easy to implement but I'm not sure everything will have a clear place.

After all this thinking a don't have a clear proposal maybe with "Modifier Sanitate" the "Modifier Change" would be cleaner and the CAD category could get back to the modifiers tab.

Modifier Change/Make as I understand them means: If there is geometry added then it goes in the Make. which brings me again to the idea of adding the Sanitate/Remove category. (as in 2.7x)

The List Categories aren't clear for me too but I don't have any reference or expertise in this topic so i don't have anything to add.

Just thinking out loud...

@zeffii zeffii deleted the topology_node branch September 28, 2019 10:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants