First things I tried - but can’t seem to be able to make them happen.
A. Can mesh primitive nodes work as an input for point instance object? I want to generate a mesh and use that as input for Point Instance. However, when I plug this node as an input for Object field of Point Instance, I get nothing. But if I replace my input with a scene picked mesh I get output…
B. Is there an offset or array clone operation node somewhere? Doesn’t matter if it is a combination of nodes but I can’t seem to be able to find such. I would like to duplicate mesh I already have generated.
I believe a “geometry” type input for the point instance node is being worked on, I’ve seen it mentioned before. Right now that’s correct you can’t instance a generated mesh.
Too bad… but can’t complain too much. I’ll have to wait then. First things I somehow expected from such system would be using those generated meshes and generating clones.
I’m also looking for options to generate shapes from points list (profiles) that I could extrude.
Anyway such features would make this kind of tool great way to generate pretty much anything, I’m not that much interested in picking objects from scene nor do I need a scattering tool (that is what first tutorials I found in YouTube seem to be doing…).
Cant say I understand. Can you explain this a bit more in detail what you mean? I’m obviously not an expert on the subject. The issue here is to create multiple instances from mesh primitives objects you generate from nodes. The point is not to have to pick any object from the scene. I would love to know about a workaround.
Thanks
Thank you for replying super fast.
What are you suggesting is not actually a workaroud. It’s precisely the way I don’t want to do it and need a workaround to not have to do it this way.
Lets say I’m creating fully procedural furniture. So I want to use my objects as assets and I would probably like to use them in all sorts of different scenes and files. Wouldn’t it be much simpler not having to import all these additional objects? Especially if these additional objects are simple primitive meshes you van easily create with nodes.
@Blender_Bash - Hi. I understand you have pretty much the same question as I had when I started the thread… but consider starting your own thread if you feel like you need to continue the discussion… the question was already answered, there is no solution currently to fix this behavior. I usually don’t like it when my email box starts to fill with replies to old threads. Thanks.
I agree it would be more handy to have a procedural asset contained in a single object… but you can append or link collections, that’s how animations scenes are usually prepared, by linking the character collection. You can still access your geonode parameters thanks to overrides so you’re not losing any functionality. For transforming and placing the asset in your scenes you can have a parent (an empty does the job well). In your outliner the asset will display as one collection or one object (the empty), depending on the view mode. For now this is the best I can suggest, hopefully this instancing issue is resolved at some point.
Hi, ezez, just because you started a thread, that doesn’t mean it’s yours. I was actually responding to a post from a different user than yourself. You can unsubscribe at any time, you know?
As far as I know, the correct behavior, in these kind of forums, is not to open new threads if there are old ones that talk about the same exact thing you want to talk about.
I was pondering if it is wise to comment about such thing to you… I guess I was right. You ignored my point (the question was answered) and you simply seem to want to continue on debating issue, where the yes/no answer I got was enough to answer the question I asked originally. And yes I can unsubscribe, and that is what I intend to do now that I see the direction this discussion takes. Bye.
