This is one of the most unintuitive things, and I keep running into people stuck at this problem. To mitigate these confusions, I want to add a little tip to the docs:
Before I go through the work of creating a patch, I would like to hear your feedback on my wording. Is it intuitive and understandable? Would this help clear up the confusion?
Cool !
By default, the random value node generates a value for each unique index.
If a single random value is desired, connect a single value to the ID input.
I just removed āin the ID inputā , thatās clearer to me, probably because itās still a bit hard for me to think of this socket as if a index node is plugged into.
Adding a screen capture just like the one above would be awesome too !
Thanks for taking the time to work on this !
I think itās also a design problem for newcomers as a whole with default socket values, itās present in the shader editor too where texture coordinates are linked to the UV map under the hood if nothing is connected.
Maybe a tickbox in the node properties or even on the UI layout where the user could choose to manually input a value instead ? Or another enum that would change the behaviour between field and scalar values, similar to how map range deals with scalar and vectors ? Automatically create a second node thatās connected to the default socket when creating it ?
Itās very convenient for everyday usage but it adds a layer of magick to the whole thing which might throw inexperienced people off.
Thanks, that works great.
Now I still have no idea how to make each usage of a node network have truly random values. Each object using the geometry nodes looks identical
If I use the node group with instance on points in another node network, every instance looks identical.
That works for multiple objects but not when trying to use it as random instances distributed on points. Shame that we have to add another empty to the scene just to define a position in space. Youād think you could just use the combineXYZ node to define any point in space. Youād also think there was a straightforward ārandom valueā node that just worked all the time.
You can expose the seed index to the modifier interface, thatās how I do it
But I want to plug something into the seed that makes it always a different seed with every object or instance instead of having to manually enter a seed
It seems hair particle systems donāt work properly with the array modifier and donāt work at all with geometry nodes
Tutorial Request: Align Euler to Vector for 5th graders - I make it a point to use this node at least once a week so I donāt forget how to use it but it always turns out that Iāve already forgotten how to use it.
You can randomise the rotation and scale through the instance on points node. Not exactly what you want but probably the best work around to make it look random.
The reason random value isnāt working for you, is that you are only creating one version of the clover, then instancing it. Having truly random clovers for each instance would require a loop to create a collection of clovers, which you cannot do with geometry nodes.
Correct me if Iām wrong but thatās my understanding of your issue.
The best way I found to get more randomness into instances is to set up a node tree to generate random objects, create a bunch of those randomized objects and put them in a collection, then instance that collection.
Instances are intended to be identical as much as is reasonable. you can certainly add more random variation in the shaders on instances, of course.
Iād say
By default, the random value node generates a value for each unique index.
If a single random value is desired, connect a static integer to the ID input.
@thinsoldier This is the way. You wanna variate the mesh circle points between certain values, right? All you have to do is create those mesh circles in a collection and instance that collection with separate children on a mesh line and input a random index in the instancer.
Edit
Or simpler
Someone would know if there is some tutorial anywhere covering such interactive constructions using Blender 3.1 Geometry nodes ?
I recommend this very informative beginner-friendly tut by @Satendra_Saraswat which covers doing that type of instancing on geometry or curves:
ā¦lots of concepts covered in there that can be applied to make castles also (you just need an additional mesh-to-curve with length-resample for the edge-stones and top-stones).
Good luck.
Iāll start learning that tutorial, and will search for those mesh to curve with length resample.
I guess he uses some randomization node for the stones on walls and their variations, or some noise texture input perhaps.
Thank you 
I really wish this project to bring geonodes manipulation into the viewport was revived (ānode toolsā). We have a robust gizmo system now, letās use it to control node values.
Just look at this example made in Houdiniā¦
Indeed ! Iām sure that will come eventuallyā¦
Itās hard for me to know what I want the most between having all the modifiers available, loops, physics, better interaction, some expression/script nodes, or all the little quality of life improvement that can be done so itās easier to work with GN. Even just adding all the patches that are more or less in a WIP state in the tracker will allow so much more.
So much things that can be worked on 
Probably interaction tools will make more sense once the whole system is more polished and complete. Would be sad to have a great tool to manipulate nodes values but still being quite limited by what nodes can doā¦
Yesā¦ I think a NODE for āmouse/keyboard/timer/snapā event capture with geometry input to capture events in it, maybe be a simpler solutionā¦ users can create anything else from this.
Yes, plus all this exists in the API already : gizmos, picking, input event handling, etc.
@sozap yes,ā¦ youāre right, we canāt have everything at once. I hope I donāt come across as the spoiled kid who wants it all ! heh. To be entirely honest, the reason I bring this up once in a while is because I know Blender as a project has often lagged behind in that regard : gizmos are a recent addition and even today most of them are half-baked. I understand in the past the reason was lack of resourcesā¦ but now that itās not really a problem anymore it would be nice to pick up the habit of developing each āsystemā (broadly speaking) with a āusabilityā task in parallel, so that itās not an afterthought.
Hahaha ! I see what you mean !
Iām sure devs will take care of that at some point. There is a big inertia between when the idea is exposed and when we see it finished. And between that, devs are working on something else so we may interpret that as they donāt careā¦
Itās like performance improvements after 2.8, for a long time it was like nothing appends, but now we start to see speedups everywhere.
But, Iām sure at some point weāll be able to drop a procedural asset from the asset browser and set all the parameters with interactive gizmos or quick edit mode, all that fit really wellā¦ but itās a long road to get there
