The issue here is that Blender has really poor and confusing multi-object editing.
What you are suggesting means I would essentially break instancing as soon as I would touch a modifier on one of the instances.
What I proposed was a way to simply touch a modifier on any of the instances and this change would be propagated to modifiers of all other instances.
So instead of breaking instancing being the default outcome unless the user knows how to (and remembers to) perform the magic trick with holding the Alt key down exactly at the right time, user would have to actively go out of their way by making modifier stack unique on a given object to break the instancing.
We donāt just need automatic instancing in the fragile case of object data and modifiers and their settings being identical, but also some user friendly way to intentionally keep them identical, in a non fragile manner.
EDIT:
Thinking about this more. Modifiers are properties of Object, and object is a datablock. But even when using Duplicate Linked linked, the object datablock is copied.
Hereās what a very elegant solution could be:
Modifier stack would be stored inside of the Object datablock (maybe it already is?)
Objects could be instanced (Right now they can just be copied. Reassigning object data-block in the properties editor just ends up changing active object selection).
Duplicate Linked would not copy Object datablock, but link it instead.
By removing the limitation of object datablocks always having to be unique and not having multiple instances in a scene, we could essentially gain ability to instance modifier stacks, as well as few other nice things (link material slot assignments or physics/simulation settings).
But then again, if transform is part of an object datablock, this could be tricky
That is right, I didnāt expect that. Iām usually instancing through geometry nodes so it isnāt case there, but indeed any modifier even gn, which isnāt adding any vertices breaks instancing. That is quite a big limitation. Nothing to do with topic of the thread, but yeah, that should definately be fixed.
Theoretical Blender has all needed. If you take a simple mesh, apply a geometry node, unlink the base mesh and then add the geometry want as an instance, you have exactly an instance and the performance gain you need. However, this is uanessacry complicate workflow.
I do that here to gain performance and its really taking a lot extra time. It could be so simple for the developer, just take an empty and point it to the geometry, all the code is in geometry nodes.
However Blenders second problem comes with the hard coded exclusion of hidden objects in nearly every command. Which makes working with many objects complicate. Then we have the problem of hierarchies that do not behave like in other application, the missing of groups and layers. But thats another discussion.
Theoretical its all in Blender and the key element missing is workflow. Blender Devs seem to have no love for people who like to work with many objects, have complex scene and the need of editing hundreds of objects at once.
It may be a known issue, but if you import a scene from 4.0 with an object with autosmooth into 4.1 on there are some small bugs.
The smooth by angle node group is added to the object correctly and it looks fine. However, If you go into the modifier and delete it then ctrl to undo, the angle is now in radians, not degrees. (Maybe related to the new rotation socket). Also this angle doesnāt have the 180 degree limit and can be overcranked. There is also no āignore sharpnessā toggle option on the modifier.
Have you guys ever thought about collection/group modifiers?
I find it absurd that I canāt just apply a simple modifier like a SubD or mirror (or the new Autosmooth) to a collection/group of objects.
As I already said, that would help to be able to apply a selection of modifiers in Outliner, through right click menu.
Geometry nodes modifierās UI is also done to allow to individualize values per object, by default.
Maybe an option could be added to Geometry Nodes nodetree to force synchronisation, instancing of all modifiers using this nodetree.
User would just need to have a Geometry Node nodetree with option ON and a copy of nodettree with option OFF to be able, to have both cases in a scene.
Not sure Iād call it āabsurdā but yeah, weād like to have collection modifiers too. There has just been plenty of more pressing tasks to get too first, and there are aspects of the design that are a bit tricky.
You are right, but there is again the trick that you use geometry nodes for the collection. Its not ideal and it needs some knowledge.
Again, many have demanded such things as groups workflow and layers. Some add-on try to mimic that, but its really a complex task in Blender. Sadly, they merged layers and groups into collection, instead of doing both.
I am sure that most of people would like that for subdivision or smoothing.
I can easily picture a panel for to handle two or three collection modifiers in Collection tab and a representation of it in objectās modifiers stack, like for physics.
But we can expect that to become tricky when objects in Collection are not of same type.
That probably implies to have lots of warnings and a beginning with a reduced list of less problematic modifiers.
Geometry nodes are able to handle complex set-up like that, because they are allowing object types conversion and applying effect on meaningful selections.
That could be impossible or too complicated to do for modifiers with a simple UI.
It is not unreasonable to have backward compatibility issues when a Major Version number changesā¦ and you know what they say about making omeletsā¦ donāt have it if you have egg allergies.
Do you really think what someone want to model like this?
Some one link duplicate some mesh over the model, then want to put some modifiers on it and?
We make a new collection for it?
We make a new āempty likeā object to put geonodes and use those collection?
I am aware of the fact that GN gives this option, but the whole point of asking for a feature like this is to have an elegant UI solution that can be done with 3 clicks.
The whole collections / layers / group thing needs a serious and honest reevaluation.
Tied into that is instancing and overrides. Blender could be an order of magnitude more efficient and performant.
Back to the actual topic:
Like Jamez said, I too love the fact that most mesh properties have turned into attributes. Reminds me of the other DCC I use regularly.
I am also aware that we are in another transition phase and that might come with some inevitable shocks and surprises.
I am an adventurous and novelty-seeking person - I am open to change.
Having played around with the new modifier for 5 minutes isnāt enough to make a final judgement - so Iāll refrain from doing so.
I remain positive that any short term disadvantages will turn into long-term advantages.
Whoever is testing the new build, donāt have time yet, wouldnāt this feature solve all UX problems? Wouldnāt it automatically update edges based on angle when you edit the object, like now?
Iād also like to see some more tests about performance gain/regression
I had to download 4.1 to see what the noise was all about. I didnāt have time to read all the comments in the thread as there are so many so please forgive me if my post is missing something obvious or already pointed out.
Is this really that big of a deal ? The modifier seems to be a nice way to do it since it is always there and can be adjusted on the fly. Unlike needing to re apply auto smooth from the drop down to make changes. Also the auto smooth modifier can be applied and baked into the mesh and then the sharp and smooth edges are preserved in the mesh as would be expected. Perhaps I am missing something ? I feel sure there must be a sensible deeper workflow reason for this ? I can see some older scenes might need tweaking but is that going to be a huge inconvenience ?
There is a quick shade smooth by angle function there now in the previous object shading drop down. Something like auto smooth but without the adjustment options. The auto smooth dropdown itself was actually a quite recent development wasnāt it. Auto Smooth used to be in the object data panel. So perhaps this was a feature always intended to be revised at some point. When I first started with Blender back in the Sintel open movie dayās there was no auto smooth and we needed to actually split the vertex to get hard edges on smooth objects. Thank god those days are over. That was my first big Blender disappointment coming over from Maya and Max but I kept reading it was on the way so I stayed positive.
I am still so happy how legacy armatures and rigs are automatically updated to the bones collections system. Again apologies if I had missed something obvious.
3.6, autosmooth off - 3.3 fps
3.6 autosmooth 60 - 2.1 fps
4.1 w/o modifier - 2 fps
4.1 with modifier - 1 fps
4.0 build from 17 Oct, off - 3.3 fps
4.0 build from 17 Oct, on - 2.2 fps
2.93 autosmooth off - 1.2 fps
2.93 autosmooth on 60 - 0.6 fps
