Right-Click Select This is a read-only archive
← All ideas
  • Published 30 Dec 2022

Circular/Radial array option

It would be nice for the array modifier to get a "circular" option where it automatically arranges the array in an evenly spaced circle around the center of parented object then you could adjust the distance from the center. every method I've tried so far has had issues where I have to fanagle the array into place and or had to know the precise angle between each instance.

This idea was marked as a duplicate of Circular Array Modifier (spin in mod form).
90.9%

Development Status: Open

Upvote 10 Downvote 1
beastlord
30 Dec 2022

6 Comments

FreeMind

I totally agree. While, sure, you can easily achieve this with geometry nodes, the regular modifiers are still very useful, because they are fast to use, in comparison to building stuff in nodes. There should be a radial option on the modifiers. Well, not a parented object, but a relative point would be better, i think. There is already a good way to rotate around an object.

Currently, what you can do is array around an empty object. You do not have to know the exact angle for the rotation. Just type "360/x" (x is number of instances) as the angle.

1
farukahmet

All modifiers will be replaced with Geometry Nodes-based versions in the (hopefully near) future, so no development effort is going to be wasted on the old ones. In the meantime I'd suggest saving a good pre-made radial array node group as an asset, you don't need to do it from scratch every time.

FreeMind

Though, I wouldn't mind if the migration was made (If it's done right), I don't think that's going to happen. Or if it will, not any time soon. Reasons:

  1. The ease of use and simplicity of current modifiers are undeniable. A node-based system, for most tasks, is overkill. Also, I have a suspicion that regular modifiers are faster, but I don't know.
  2. Currently, Geometry node group inputs are only placed in a list and cannot be organized in submenus, and such. The organizational flexibility is heavily lacking, compared to how inputs are organized on regular modifiers. This may soon be implemented if someone takes on the task, but I doubt that's happening soon.
  3. Backwards compatibility. Unless someone writes some kind of translator, this would literally break most .blend files. In the best-case scenario, such a bold move would require a major blender release (Blender 4?)

I'm sure, Improving the current modifiers still makes a lot of sense.

simon2

Geometry-nodes is a separate method and doesn't replace pre-existing or deficiencies of regular modelling methods and features.

For example if you were modelling a car alloy wheel, ideally you'd work on only one spoke and then use an instanced polar array to generate the other spokes.

Essentially you model an entity via regular modelling methods and then use geometry-nodes to distribute that entity. For example you'd model a few different types of curb/kerb the regular way and then use geometry-nodes to distribute those kerbs along a spline. A different kerb for a corner, another one for a driveway etc. (and spline/curve modelling in Blender is still awful)

I think Blender should actually have a global array translator like most other software applications do.

1
thinsoldier

There's dozens of geometry nodes premade node groups for radial array. There's just not any one place on the internet where someone has gathered them together. Hopefully one will be added by default to the built in asset browser contents whenever they finish that feature.

zuorion

There were many attepts to add that to array, unfortunetly none made it.

Use GeometryNodes for that.