This does bring up a point that we should all be aware of already, when you share something on the internet there is always the possibility that that someone could try to sell it as their own (I do not know if this is the case). This has happened to Blender itself.
I do not want to introduce a discussion about the license rights of what is uploaded to Blender Artists (there is already a thread for that).
Personally I do not care, what I share here I am willing to share and I do it for the good of community but it is something to take into account.
It was an automatic blenderartists forum email. The original post got deleted before he saw it, but the email was already delivered. I ended up noticing the original post earlier this morning. (It was already flagged)
I am working on a separate branch node that will spawn splits across a range, I think it is better at the moment to separate the concepts of trunk splitting and branching as it would be very tedious to shape each branch separately.
One thing that is already possible is to add different split nodes together with one split each to have total control of the general trunk shape.
This is one mother trunk with 3 “single split” split nodes.
3 Likes
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
895
You’re making me feel bad for taking a couple of days off over here.
As for adding the separate split node, there’s what I’d want, and what’s most feasible. In other words, while I’d like to keep it confined to the Trunk-Branch-Leaf node setup, if adding extra nodes makes things easier to work with, and more intuitive to use, I’ll happily roll with it.
Do not feel bad, you have been at it for months! Get a rest it is good to step back sometimes.
I think of all this as separate nodes for separate functions, as long as they are compatible they are different tools.
2 Likes
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
897
It hasn’t been MONTHS. I did take December and most of January off.
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
898
I meant to comment on this, since it addresses the one thing I thought the splits most needed: multiple spawn points along the spline for different split nodes.
The thing is, does each split position have to have it’s own unique node?
…I guess it does, because it’d be difficult to define user set positions for multiple spawn points, but I still think we could make it cleaner somehow.
…and splitting it off like that would solve my concerns about having different branch lengths and positions per trunk split.
The example is for hero splits ( you have total separate control of each one) as each one uses its own node.
The branch node will create a whole load of splits along the spline lengths with different scales and multiple “select points (plural)” options, you will not have such control over each branch but they will have randomization and general control shaping and scaling curves (similar to your branches).
have had a eureka moment that for me will change the game.
I woke up this morning thinking of what makes things grow as they are.
Trees have branches and twigs in a similar fashion as we have children. They grow off buds which are like little eggs. The branches are children of the trunk and the twigs are the trunks grandchildren. They inherit the genes of the trunk but have genetic variations.
So basically if we change the genes (shape) of the trunk we will in turn change the branches and twigs according to that genetic information.
There should be no need to shape branches and twigs, the only thing they need are deviations of the genetic information.
So to get diverse trees we need to diversify the trunks genetic information, the rest is simply a question of variating the result.
A pine tree has a very straight trunk, straight branches, straight twigs and straight leaves.
An oak tree has lovely wiggly leaves, twigs, branches and trunk. (I turned the order around on purpose.)
Plant a leaf in the ground and you will have an idea of the shape the tree could have.
For me this concept will mean a total rewrite in a different direction altogether, I have to make a new plan from top to bottom.
I’m not a botanic but, as envinroment affects children, in the “same” way it affects plant shape.
So, for example a lonely pine will grow in a different way compared to a pine surrounded by other pines.
In any case, @DNorman approach could be good… but I think it will be less manageable and less artist friendly…but I hope to be wrong about this.
3 Likes
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
903
It probably won’t supplant everything that’s in there now, since I design primarily around the Rule of Cool, and want a tree generator that’ll allow me to do that, but for people who want GeoTrees to produce more realistic results, a’la The Grove, it’d be a nice addition.
Plus, we can always find a way to mix and match things later.
Yes but it would also mean you have to set the parameters for each branch node (one each split), which could get tedious.
Yes environment counts, also wind etc there are may things that tweak the shape of tree growth. Having more control of the tree shape at low level helps mimic these things.
That is not my intention your tree is already cool.
That is the idea, the split node is compatible, (well at the moment with the trunk, I am working on forward compatibility with the branches).
The split node I posted was a “concept” post and is not finished. I will make it totally compatible.
That’s the best rule!
I hope so too!
I am thinking out loud a bit with all of this.
3 Likes
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
907
Yeah, but I can’t see any immediate way around having to do it. You’ll notice that with forked trees in real life, the branches tend to grow away from the splits until they get more clearance. As the Geotrees are now, they’ll just shoot out branches off every trunk in any random direction, with scale primarily defined by their position on the Z axis. At the very least, we’d have to control the rotation of the limbs per branch, or preferably find a way to control scaling along ±XY per fork.
Here’s a nice illustration to illustrate what I mean. We’ll have to find a way to control the growth sweep per trunk…
