Node-based Modifier layout, instead of the current stack list

[Gregory.Glezakos]

Simple task? i don't know, but....

-Take the ancient modifier list and convert it to a node-based workflow, while redesigning the GUI to accommodate this change.

And i'm not talking about complex low level control like MCG nodes, but a higher level control with a modern node-based layout, that should be visually appealing and easier to explore, use and assign/connect modifiers, than the current stack list of operations, which can get cluttered quite easily...

Thanks,

[zarich]

I agree 100%, as it should be easy for users to adapt to and will allow greater control of the modifiers.

[Anonymous]

I want to throw some weight behind this, too, if it's feasible.

[Lunaley]

This would be sooo **** great to have!!!

[Anonymous]

Ultimately, we would want to see all node graph environments migrated to the SlateSDK. Also, with Bifrost procedural workflows on the horizon it might be a perfect time to overhaul the modifier system and remove some that will become legacy once Bifrost starts pumping out new ones.

[joescarr]

Huge support for this

[Anonymous]

I agree, user can work easily, faster, and more precision

[sschain]

Agree as well, this would be a great way to work with modifiers.

[dean_dean]

yes it would be awsome as long as you don't have to be a scripter to use it like mcg,

[pi3c3]

Removing the modifier stack is just simply not a solution. Also the modifier stack is a way more compact and faster way to work with, than using a node graph, where you have to connect different nodes together and you also have to understand the connections. A modifier stack is a quick way to work with modifiers, that's why it's so successful. You are using it without even noticing that you are using it. Also it hides all the connections, which are pretty unnecessary to show, because in most cases they are passing only the mesh data.

A node based graph is only good if you want a fully overview.

[sebastian___]

I agree, the modifier stack is iconic and almost defines max and makes it what it is.

And it's smaller and quicker for a lot of tasks.

But almost all 3d dcc have node based modifiers, and Blender is investing heavily into this, which is logical, as you have way better flexibility with a node editor. 

The rewiring system in max which is pretty good but with a bad interface, the schematic view - which again, bad interface, and the modifier system should be easy to turn into a single good node based editor, while at the same time keeping the classic modifier stack.

The old Autodesk Combustion compositing program was similar. It had a timeline similar to After Effects with tracks and effects bellow the tracks, but at the push of a button you could open the node editor where everything was more clear.

In a way you had two-in-one. An after effects editor like, and a Nuke one, in the same package.

[jamison.ibister]

The modifier stack being compact and flexible without needing to open a giant additional window is what makes it successful.  Being able to hit "1"-"4" to select sub selections makes working very fast. Slate is useful for complex materials, but for simple materials the compact editor allows me to work much faster. If node based modifiers are implemented you need to retain both options like the material editor, rather than the disastrous "caddies" debacle.

[joescarr]

Yes, keep the traditional modifier stack, but a node-based modifier (or
node based scene manager) would be an additional tool offering a new & more
flexible workflow.