Now that Simulation Nodes are here. Should we create a new tag called simulation-nodes like we have for geometry-nodes?
1 Answer
I've been thinking a bit more about this and came to the conclusion that for the time being at least we do need the simulation-nodes tag.
It is true our tag system is a bit inconsistent at the time, we do have tags for some modifiers but not others.
The general (lack of) rule so far has been creating tags on a need-to basis. Users, some times newly arrived, create tags that lay around for a while, and we ended up adding wikis to them making them became more permanent. Some times in retrospect we come to the conclusion we don't need a certain tag and create a synonym after the fact.
I do think some specific modifier tags do have their value, they help us filter for more specific or substantial modifiers (like boolean or bevel), or distinguish between modifiers and their homonym edit mode operators.
As for the Simulation Nodes I'd vote for keeping it as dedicated tag not because they are distinct from regular geometry-nodes, but to help distinguish from legacy physics simulations, which I suspect will eventually be phased out in favor and the new system.
It may additionally be relevant in contrast with regular Geometry Nodes, since unlike the old Fields, (which became an integral part of the broader geometry nodes) physics simulations will always act as "box" inside a more general node tree, with well defined "gated" entry and exit points.
While input can be added at any point in the simulation box, output will only happen with a Simulation Output node. I haven't yet dug into the specifics, but I suspect this will open the door to trying to solve certain issues with the subset of nodes that can be used inside this simulation area, along with any additional limitations that may or may not apply.
For these reasons I'd argue to create a simulation-nodes and maintain tag to distinguish from the old physics simulation both for historical purposes and for any users for any reason stuck with older Blender versions.
Let me know if you have any arguments against it. If we all agree now would be a good time to create it, since questions about simulation are likely to start rising in volume in the near future.
-
1$\begingroup$ OK, let's do this, I agree for now. I'm not quite convinced yet, since more tags don't make the tags less, but in this case a distinction might be handy for the future. And if the questions are tagged, they can always be retagged afterwards if the decision didn't turn out to be useful after all. I am so free and take care of it right away.... $\endgroup$– quellenform ModCommented May 16, 2023 at 12:54
-
$\begingroup$ Yes, we can later remove the tag if we no longer see the need for it. It is easier to remove an unwanted tag, then it is to retroactively try to tag a large backlog of existing questions with an new tag. $\endgroup$– Duarte Farrajota Ramos ModCommented May 16, 2023 at 14:23
correctly
stated, on the other hand it really is it's own subgroup. We currently have themodifier
tag but we also have thescrew-modifier
tag and thebevel
tag (should be abevel-modifer
tag also) but we have noweld-modifier
tag. What are the requirements for a tag to be created. Note this can quickly get out of hand and we start creating a tag for everything (Like putting post-it notes / labels on everything hahaha imgur.com/NWzeK6H) $\endgroup$