@@galdocstutorials Fair. Programmers would do programmer things. I could actually foresee myself getting into modelling with nothing but geometry nodes. (I know, I sound insane saying that)
@@TECHN01200 Doesn't sound insane at all! CAD is basically parametric modeling, which is very similar to what you're talking about. And back in the day, there was a program called POVRay which basically let one describe with math / code a scene and it would render it for you. Indeed, if this is something you want to explore in blender, the program comes with a built in scripting environment to do exactly this. It's not as comfortable as Geo Nodes, and there's a much steeper learning curve as one has to work out how to interface with Blender's UI and all of its random parts and systems, but it lets you, well, program your way to victory. ;) That said -- it's also quite likely you can do most of what you want in Geo Nodes -- and if not, look up Sverchok nodes, which is closer to what most people would have expected an 'api wrapper with nodes' to have been.
@@galdocstutorials Interesting. Didn't know that was what POVRay was. I know it as a benchmark from old hardware reviews. I saw a unique CAD program a while ago that used nothing but math equations. There's also another one called ZOO, formerly called KittyCAD that built an entire ML style programming language and programming tools surrounding it to do nothing but CAD. I guess calling it insane was the wrong word. I guess I'd call it unconventional. The nice part about geo-nodes for me would be the satisfaction of parametric perfection.
Great video on Geometry Nodes! I've recently tried learning them but it's definitely been an uphill battle. My most embarrassing moment was when I got confused over is how new Geometry Node Groups are just called "Geometry Nodes" in the modifier, which is basically also what Materials do but with the modifier offering no way to quickly go to a view of it I was lost. The recent(ish) multi-noodle sockets on nodes is a nice feature, I wonder if they'll end up changing the Group Output Geometry socket to match, saving people from having to create a join node at the end of any additive node group. Might be nice. Last thing I'll say in this letter of a comment, it's interesting that you created the flange the normal way and then the rivets with geometry nodes. Was this just to simplify the tutorial or do you usually mix and match like that? I'd imagine if you did it all in a node group then you make it so the radius on the rivets is never an issue, but I am guessing I am probably missing something on it.
Honestly -- it depends. If I am making a single thing that I don't need to be procedurally randomized and I can think of a fast way of doing it manually, I'll typically mix and match. My rule of thumb is 'what's efficient.' However, if I need to make multiple versions of something, then I'll usually do all of it in Geo Nodes, though that can often cost me a bunch of time when I get lost in the spaghetti lol :) And yeah, I wish they'd make the output socket multi-noodle. Would be a very nice QoL feature.
Can't use blender without geonode now. I often just stack simple ones on top of each other when possible though, like using a single modifier for just convex hull, or add endcaps to screw modifier, or duplicate and spin objects around a point.
These have been fantastic! Thank you
Nice! Didnt even know about this feature of blender yet. It looks so useful, i can alrady conjure the image of me using it, thanks!
As a programmer, this looks like an ergonomic way to make models. I don't know how people make models by hand and not drive themselves crazy.
Familairity :) Definitely a learned skill, and not a super easy one to pick up.
@@galdocstutorials Fair. Programmers would do programmer things. I could actually foresee myself getting into modelling with nothing but geometry nodes. (I know, I sound insane saying that)
@@TECHN01200 Doesn't sound insane at all! CAD is basically parametric modeling, which is very similar to what you're talking about. And back in the day, there was a program called POVRay which basically let one describe with math / code a scene and it would render it for you. Indeed, if this is something you want to explore in blender, the program comes with a built in scripting environment to do exactly this. It's not as comfortable as Geo Nodes, and there's a much steeper learning curve as one has to work out how to interface with Blender's UI and all of its random parts and systems, but it lets you, well, program your way to victory. ;) That said -- it's also quite likely you can do most of what you want in Geo Nodes -- and if not, look up Sverchok nodes, which is closer to what most people would have expected an 'api wrapper with nodes' to have been.
@@galdocstutorials Interesting. Didn't know that was what POVRay was. I know it as a benchmark from old hardware reviews. I saw a unique CAD program a while ago that used nothing but math equations. There's also another one called ZOO, formerly called KittyCAD that built an entire ML style programming language and programming tools surrounding it to do nothing but CAD. I guess calling it insane was the wrong word. I guess I'd call it unconventional. The nice part about geo-nodes for me would be the satisfaction of parametric perfection.
Great video on Geometry Nodes! I've recently tried learning them but it's definitely been an uphill battle. My most embarrassing moment was when I got confused over is how new Geometry Node Groups are just called "Geometry Nodes" in the modifier, which is basically also what Materials do but with the modifier offering no way to quickly go to a view of it I was lost.
The recent(ish) multi-noodle sockets on nodes is a nice feature, I wonder if they'll end up changing the Group Output Geometry socket to match, saving people from having to create a join node at the end of any additive node group. Might be nice.
Last thing I'll say in this letter of a comment, it's interesting that you created the flange the normal way and then the rivets with geometry nodes. Was this just to simplify the tutorial or do you usually mix and match like that? I'd imagine if you did it all in a node group then you make it so the radius on the rivets is never an issue, but I am guessing I am probably missing something on it.
Honestly -- it depends. If I am making a single thing that I don't need to be procedurally randomized and I can think of a fast way of doing it manually, I'll typically mix and match. My rule of thumb is 'what's efficient.' However, if I need to make multiple versions of something, then I'll usually do all of it in Geo Nodes, though that can often cost me a bunch of time when I get lost in the spaghetti lol :)
And yeah, I wish they'd make the output socket multi-noodle. Would be a very nice QoL feature.
Can't use blender without geonode now. I often just stack simple ones on top of each other when possible though, like using a single modifier for just convex hull, or add endcaps to screw modifier, or duplicate and spin objects around a point.