This information finally went public…
Two significant additions for Modo 10.1 (which should launch within a month or two) are MeshOPs/Procedural modifier stack (python based) and a new way to use Mesh Fusion based on the new meshops (which is a vast improvement).
Videos below:
Information and videos grabbed from this thread: http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=3&t=122339&page=0#1021221
Is the modifier system a true one though (in the sense that it’s based on a stack or a node-tree, which you can edit at any time like in 3DS Max)?
Otherwise, it would seem to me like it’s rather more akin to the dupliverts system that Blender has had since version 2.25 but fancier (since he does mention replicators and particles in the fence demo). The mesh fusion stuff looks quite advanced as usual (expanding on its industry-leading boolean tools).
According to them its as true as you can get, but their approach is a bit different. Also what we see is the framework they have built so that it can continue to grow in the future. Right now you can use the Modo based top to bottom layer approach, with the option to use nodes as well. So its a stack in the sense it fits within Modo’s layering system. All of it being non destructive.
The result is you get the regular tools which are destructive, and then the option to use meshOPs with a layer stack/node tree to drive the procedural modeling. Both kinds of modeling existing within the same space. (there is also the Fabric Engine being developed, so…many options on the table).
The cool thing about this being done though, is it opens up the door for a lot of other new features that can be built on top of it… like that mesh fusion demonstration.
Awesome…:o
Side announcement:
Free Mari non-commercial edition is announced.
[http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/The-Foundry-releases-free-version-of-MARI_nid-5962.html
<a href=“http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/The-Foundry-releases-free-version-of-MARI_nid-5962.html” target="_blank">
https://vimeo.com/166029841
](http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/The-Foundry-releases-free-version-of-MARI_nid-5962.html)
Cool,
not sure if it’s blender related though.
The rules of the News & Chat forum permit the announcement of new versions of other software (particularly in the area of art, CG, or game creation).
This thread is in the right place. I’ve seen threads of mine moved to this section because of that.
I think Latest News and Blender and CG Discussion should be consolidated into one forum anyway. The distinction of what goes where is pretty arbitrary, and neither forum has so much traffic it’s hard to keep track.
Assuming there is a Linux version (can’t check at the moment), I’ll probably check out Mari. I figure I may as well learn what it can do if its free and all that.
since when is mari free? can you link?
NVM I didn’t realise how little sense my post made
This should be some good news for Blender hobbyist who need a professional texturing application and are not trying to make money off their work.
To make it easier, here is a more direct link if you need it. (non-commercial use)
https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/non-commercial/mari-non-commercial/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=vimeo.com&utm_campaign=mari-non-commercial
why would anyone implement a stacking system for modifiers in this day and age? Not being rude, but to not develop a modifier system as a nodal system in 2016 is pretty silly…furthermore, developing as nodes I wouldn’t even consider to be pro-active, as opposed to re-active, at this point on the 3d development spectrum…node based everything should be the way of most everything at this point…even rendering could go this route figuratively.
They also have it in Shematic editor. Someone like stack some nodes, in MODO you have both.
really? that does sound good…I’ll probably never invest in it, but still good for modo users 
Nodes can also be very complex and confusing - so it is not everybody’s taste.
I am quite impressed with the speed the boolean calculations can be done.
Too bad Blender’s boolean tool is so terribly slow.
I am curious how ling does it take Modo to also offer the other modifiers
Blender has.
I’m a big Modo user. I model just about everything in it for work. I’m just used to it more than anything. I have to say, there nodal system SUCKS bad. It gets the job done for rigging but they totally missed the point when they added the deformation system, mesh fusion nodes and now the geometry modifiers. Nodes should always be about the flow of data. One node modifies the next and so on. It should always look something like: mesh -> modifier -> modifier -> result. In modo it makes no sense. You’ve got modifiers running into meshes and meshes running into deformers that have effectors running into them as well. it’s a total free-for-all. I think the issue is that they were looking at Maya (who is very similar in it’s structure) instead of something like Houdini or even Nuke. Nodes are supposed to make things clearer not more confusing.
On a side note, I really hope the Blender foundation takes a long hard look at all the different node systems (particularly Houdini) when coming up with the final design for Blender modifier nodes. But watch out for getting to granular with nodes like in XSI. In my opinion modifier nodes should look just like the shader nodes. You have modifier that runs into a modifier and so on into a result node. Each node should have an input for a mask or vertex map or something that defines how it effects the mesh and that’s about it. Hmmm I didn’t realize how strongly I felt about this… I should definitely post this where the devs can see it. 
The initial screens I’ve seen for Lukas Tonne’s object nodes system appears to be of a system that is similar in structure to the Cycles nodes (that is you have a specific socket type for modifiers that creates a direct effect on the ones down the line).
The object nodes branch is still in active development (though I’m not sure if it’s officially at the point where users might want to test it).
What I’ve seen of Lukas’ mockups and designs so far seems similar to Houdini. It is hard to really appreciate it until you have tried it, but it makes sense to have different levels of operation : inside a particle system node for instance, you get all the particle-related nodes, and those specific nodes, being contained in such a way, do not clutter the “upper-level” network. Same for a generic “mesh operation” node : inside of it would lay all the low level nodes operating on geometry in the most basic fashion, making it easy to design a modifier by hand. Targeting any part of a mesh designated by an arbitrary parameter (proximity to an object, mean movement over the last ten frames…) becomes possible when you can link everything together.
I really wonder how constraints and other object transform relationships will be handled though. I can’t wait to rig with nodes like we do in Maya (but Maya is so clumsy and impractical).
Can you post some screenshots?
Indeed, I just found some preliminary design docs. That’s basically what I was thinking too. The only thing I would like to see is to have the controls visible on the nodes like they are in Cycles. Also, if each node had a “Mask” input that could be either a texture, vertex group or another object’s proximity dynamically generating a vertex map. Then you could use an object and move it across the surface to define where displacement happened. Or two of the same modifiers being used on the same mesh but only effecting specific areas. Theres a lot of different uses for this. We already have this in the current modifiers. Most modifiers have a vertex map input. I just want to make sure it’s an actual node input and not left as a field in the node. That way you could effect the vert group outside of the node before it was plugged in (similar to adding a math node and multiplying a texture’s current value before plunging it into something).
Ace, Maybe you know, is there any kind of discussion going on anywhere about this or is it all up to Lucas?
Yeah, I agree. I like the idea of nested levels of complexity. And yeah, as I pointed out already the reason Modo nodes suck is that they used Maya as their main example. 