rename vertices to points, and face corners to vertices to match other software, and to remove dual naming convention Blender has currently settled on.
Would be nice to get rid of these weird blender specific naming conventions such as face corners, which are actually vertices per face to match other software such as Houdini, and as described in the split normal tooltip in the 3d viewport:
Point normal can be averaged from contained verts (smooth normals), verts store split normals (as indicated above). Custom normals can be stored in verts to achieve custom split normals (as they already are), and point normals can continue to be calculated on the fly (smooth shading). This would allow the user to choose on a per elements basis which normal system is active, automatic point normals or the stored custom split normals. It would also allow users to be able to edit normal attributes in the vertex normals without affecting the point normals.
At the moment it's a bit all over the place.
Recognising point cloud points, vertices and instances as points would open up the door for a much more simplified cross domain toolset, as nodes/operations that are designed specifically for one domain type such as forces are designed for point clouds and physics objects, would mean that those same tools could intuitively be used to manipulate both instances (which are bascially points that hold the address of a mesh), and geometry points (and therefore the contained verts/face corners).
This would allow for modelling with physics tools, such as building a helix using a vortex force field in combination with an extrude for example, or making a monkey appear to flap in the wind just by using a wind force field on it's points directly. All these things are possible, but with extra steps, such as adding a cloth sim to the monkey to get it's points/verts to react to the force fields.
6 Comments
Clearly this isn't weird nor specific to Blender. It's a common terminology in computer graphics, and at least the two main competing softwares use the same.
What you seem to talk about are mathematical vertices:
But we are in a different context, in fact it's explained in the same page:
Check out houdini's user manual, I mean if you want to rely on autodesk over the most advanced 3d software available then I'll leave that up to you :)
sidefx.com/docs/houdini/model/attributes.html
Your face is made up of 4 vertices, connecting faces also have 4 vertices, if the corners of four faces are aligned, then you have 4 vertices in one point, Blender callse these vertices face corners, and it calls the point where those 4 vertices are located, the vertex.
If you turn on split normals in the viewport, it's actually described as 'vertex per face' in the tooltip (in keeping with the blender's own naming convention this should be face corner normals).
Anyway, it's just my opinion as a former Houdini user. I don't suppose it matters too much either way providing the same functionality is there. Although I think one limitation of Blender's system is we cant paint harsh transitions in weight/vertex paint mode between faces, because surrounding faces share the data of the one vertex, whereas if the vertices where face corners, we'd be able to give the faces unique colours.
I'm really sorry, but I don't get your point there.
Many softwares do use many different terms for many things. Like bones vs joints, segments vs edges, lights vs lamps, render engine vs renderer, etc...
You could always argue that X software is "better" in some way and therefore everyone should follow its naming convention.
But that's an endless and ever-changing debate, isn't it?
Houdini's users feeling lost in Blender because of naming convention differences can be said for anyone transitioning from, and to, any software.
So again: endless and ever-changing debate.
There is no single standard, but instead MANY standards, none of which is perfect and users will always keep using the words they feel like using anyway.
To caricature:
Hence, I don't think it is a subject worth spending developers' time on. Especially for something as frequently used as vertex: it's everywhere, in every page of the manual, every place of the software, everyone's mouth.
People already struggle to transition to the big naming convention shift from Blender 2.8 🥲
I've updated the topic, to better get my vertex...I mean point across.
You made me spit coffee through my nose, thanks!