Geometry Nodes Generators --- GN node trees as procedural assets, Empty-like objects act as containers for generated geometry and entry point for GN node tree.
Modifiers as Geometry Nodes trees
Geometry Nodes modifiers do have one Geometry input, one Geometry output, and several additional inputs/outputs.
Special Empties as entry point for GN generated content
There are situations we do not like to keep the original object, but create everything from within GN node tree.
A (Geometry Nodes as assets to generate)
What do you think of the idea to have a special type of Empty object, which acts like an entry point for Geometry Nodes content generation?
This kind of 'generator' Empty object does use a GN node tree, just like a GN modifier does.
But a GN Generator does lack a Geometry input.
One core idea is, to have GN Generators as procedural assets. Sharing and distributing them as GN node trees. Once the user uses a GN Generator asset, a type of Empty is created, which does act like an entry point for the GN node tree, and it does act as a container for generated geometry.
Some further ideas
There are still GN Attributes. In GN Modifiers, GN Attributes are mapped by plugging them into specific Modifier input/output.
I am not sure if this would work for empties that way. Unless there are other (better) ideas, I suppose that all GN Generator inputs are properties.
An idea would be to map all non-geometry outputs automatically to GN Attributes with the same names.
8 Comments
It does have been implemented in Blender 5.2. developer.blender.org/docs/release_notes/5.2/geometry_nodes/
Why not simply enabling modifiers on Empties, so we can use GN modifiers on them? What would be the problem with this? Why needing a "special" Empty type?
Using an empty object would be very confusing as many options that meshes have aren’t available limiting the power of geom nodes. Having an empty mesh object might be better as it has all the options a mesh has
Collection instances use empties. Is it that confusing?
In what way using Empties as entry points for a GN node tree would be limiting? Please describe more in-depth what you mean.
GN node tree could generate curves, volumes, point clouds, meshes, and so on. Imo, a mesh type is rather a special case.
Sorry I misunderstood your proposal. It isn't about the empty ID type, but seems to propose a new ID type to solve a workflow related issue. If this is the case I do see a big issue as the costs, risks and limitation of adding a new ID type is very high and there might not be sufficient benefit to make this work.
I thought that the empty is just a kind of container. The user would browse through lists of GN Generators or GN Generator assets, which are only node trees. But he would be able to pull them into his own scene, and get geometry which is generated on the fly. He probably would not bother that it does use an Empty-like type of object as entry point.
Later, we might have Collection Nodes. It would be interesting to have access to GN Generators, which could generate nature assets on the fly, without the need to have pre-defined container objects.
I cannot estimate potential cost of its implementation, and I cannot see the risks. I would need more in-dept knowledge of Blender.
And how it is different from current geometry primitives?
You compare apples to cherries. The primitives ould be used to create geometry from inside a GN node tree. But, if you like to do, you do need a node tree.
The idea is about using an Empty as an entry point for Geometry nodes, just like an Empty is used for Collection Instances or Reference images.