Geometry Nodes Development Discussion

[anon98372585]

@Hadriscus

What I gather from Jacques’ devtalk post is the xpbd solver is going to be implemented as a node group indeed. I think this is fantastic

Absolutely

@Hadriscus

At some point in the post he mentions “internal sockets” for kdtree & bvh, I think that means “not exposed to the user” but who knows?

Yes ! from the blog post :

We will try and implement as much of this as possible using generic geometry nodes. Some parts like collision detection and constraint grouping may require new built-in nodes for performance reasons. This will be decided when we get there.

That’s the way to go in my view as well. There is no need (at least not now) to turn Geometry Nodes into a powerful programming language. Add what is needed.

Some time ago Joseph started to experiment with a boids (Geo?Boids: Better Boids Simulation with [Geometry Nodes AND/OR scripting]). That’s a great application of Geometry Nodes in my view, except that the performance can’t be great if there are many boids.
If the new nodes are made to be flexible enough, they could be used to massively improve the performance for that boid project.