Nice! tip: adding an Object input and using Object info node (and dragging the same mesh) you can use the location (eg: the Vector length) as a value to add to the seed to change the rock every time you change its position; duplicating the object will update the mesh input to the new one so each rock will have its own custom location seed.
Great tutorial! Just some personal speculations, but, it would rock (!) if that "tangled" look could be alleviated. Perhaps, if it was possible to set a minimum possible distance between verts, that effect could be alleviated? What I mean is that in some areas, it's quite pointy and looks like 'bad geometry'. If vets weren't allowed to be closer to each other than N units, that effect would be gone, I guess.
You're right. That's the problem I was trying to solve by remeshing with the Volume nodes, but it is definitely still there a bit. Perhaps another Merge By Distance affecting the whole rock?
That was a cool tutorial. Introduced me to some new (to this beginner) nodes. I did find that if you put the Convex Hull after the last Set Position, you don't need the Merge by Distance. I'm always interested in the minimal graph and operational order. Great job. Thank you.
Fantastic! No more manual point moving to build low poly rocks and boulders. Question: what nodes would help making it more of a peak, like a mountain?
This is great, thank you very much. As a total noob I have two questions: 1. Is using geometry nodes "lighter weight" in a sort of "resource" way than for example if you took a cube, added sub div and displace modifiers etc etc? What and I asking here, haha... uhh... like, I feel as though low poly count is great for viewport function on less robust computers, so does going the geo nodes route help with that kind of thing? 2. is there a node that could perhaps control the "corners" of each rock? Like rounding them out? Thanks!
Hey Christopher! > Did you try adjusting the Points To Volume radius? I think I called it "Bevel Size" in the video. You could try the larger radius AND a Subdivision Surface node (at the end) to smooth things out further. > The beauty of Geometry Nodes is in configurability. If you manage to build your model in nodes, it is 100% procedural. This means you can change any aspect of it, in any way, at any time. Super awesome for use cases where you might want tons of different variations of an object. It's also useful for things that would be *difficult* to model, like positioning the petals on a flower. In terms of resource usage it's about the same. If you built this same rock using traditional modeling it might be a little LESS resource-intensive (less configurability though.) If you're copying a lot of objects all over the place, geonodes will be lighter on the computer because you can instance objects instead of duplicating them. Low poly count does help with viewport speed. Geometry nodes doesn't specifically help you build low poly things-as with most of Blender's tools, it can make high or low poly things. So: - Geonodes when you're scattering or need extreme configurability - Plain Old Modeling is fine the rest of the time
Nice! tip: adding an Object input and using Object info node (and dragging the same mesh) you can use the location (eg: the Vector length) as a value to add to the seed to change the rock every time you change its position; duplicating the object will update the mesh input to the new one so each rock will have its own custom location seed.
Oh this is an amazing idea! That way every rock will be different based on where it's located. Thanks @AndreaLeganza!
Great tutorial! Just some personal speculations, but, it would rock (!) if that "tangled" look could be alleviated. Perhaps, if it was possible to set a minimum possible distance between verts, that effect could be alleviated? What I mean is that in some areas, it's quite pointy and looks like 'bad geometry'. If vets weren't allowed to be closer to each other than N units, that effect would be gone, I guess.
You're right. That's the problem I was trying to solve by remeshing with the Volume nodes, but it is definitely still there a bit. Perhaps another Merge By Distance affecting the whole rock?
Keeping verts a specified distance away from each other is a really neat idea, I'm going to give that a shot.
That was a cool tutorial. Introduced me to some new (to this beginner) nodes. I did find that if you put the Convex Hull after the last Set Position, you don't need the Merge by Distance. I'm always interested in the minimal graph and operational order. Great job. Thank you.
Amazing idea! That solves the problem far more simply.
Fantastic! No more manual point moving to build low poly rocks and boulders. Question: what nodes would help making it more of a peak, like a mountain?
To give you the best possible control, just apply the modifier to make it a real mesh, just manually sculpt or use proportional editing.
This is great, thank you very much. As a total noob I have two questions: 1. Is using geometry nodes "lighter weight" in a sort of "resource" way than for example if you took a cube, added sub div and displace modifiers etc etc? What and I asking here, haha... uhh... like, I feel as though low poly count is great for viewport function on less robust computers, so does going the geo nodes route help with that kind of thing? 2. is there a node that could perhaps control the "corners" of each rock? Like rounding them out? Thanks!
Hey Christopher!
> Did you try adjusting the Points To Volume radius? I think I called it "Bevel Size" in the video.
You could try the larger radius AND a Subdivision Surface node (at the end) to smooth things out further.
> The beauty of Geometry Nodes is in configurability.
If you manage to build your model in nodes, it is 100% procedural. This means you can change any aspect of it, in any way, at any time.
Super awesome for use cases where you might want tons of different variations of an object. It's also useful for things that would be *difficult* to model, like positioning the petals on a flower.
In terms of resource usage it's about the same. If you built this same rock using traditional modeling it might be a little LESS resource-intensive (less configurability though.)
If you're copying a lot of objects all over the place, geonodes will be lighter on the computer because you can instance objects instead of duplicating them.
Low poly count does help with viewport speed. Geometry nodes doesn't specifically help you build low poly things-as with most of Blender's tools, it can make high or low poly things.
So:
- Geonodes when you're scattering or need extreme configurability
- Plain Old Modeling is fine the rest of the time
Thank you for this video, how to add the bevels on the edges of the rock?
I didn't use any bevels in the video, but a Bevel Modifier might do the trick.