I don’t remember cloning and then baking transforms acting like this?
Did something change?
Basically my understanding is if we clone a mesh its a new mesh, if we apply scaling to the new one it should not effect the old one? Something fishy is going on here because I’m pretty sure this is something I’ve used in the past with no problems maybe I’m mistaken, but something feels off here.
afaik clones have always shared geometry,
you can make it not share geometry by calling clone.makeGeometryUnique();
like so,
Thank you, I totally forgot about that method. For some reason I thought they already did that.
Waaaaaait actually… hold on.
Shouldn’t “bakeCurrentTransformIntoVertices()” make the geometry unique?
From a users perspective if I’m reassigning data into the vertex data that is unique and probably auto run makeGeometryUnique if its not already.
I mean geometry has the vertices data. so bakeCurrentTransformIntoVertices does what it says.
I see your point, but what if the user wants to bake transform into vertices And keep the geometry of it still shared. there’d be no way to do that : O
You would just bake before cloning then?
Imagine an architecture CAD app w/ a key feature in the workflow
but the different floors can still have different paint jobs (so diff materials)
Only way to achieve this is to share geometry.
Now you don’t know in advance what changes the user will do to a floor,
and based on w/e features you provide or how your system is set up you might wanna at some point, bakeCurrentTransformIntoVertices
the moment you do that all the rest of the floors will lose their connection
No. I would argue the proper way would be effect the first class instance of the floor.
In a cad program you would have instances based off a single “ground truth mesh” you can’t bake/manipulate the vertices of an instance without making the geometry unique. But if we bake the ground truth mesh they all change. In contrast we make copies of a mesh yes they can share geometry but the second I bake information into a copy (in cad programs for most general purposes copies are unique geometry anyways) it becomes its own and does not mutate the original.
It’s pretty easy, it’s just a matter of when you call it and what you are targeting.
if you bake something on the very first one that you started cloning, the all the clones down chain yes should be effected but if we bake a clone it should become unique. Its really not that hard conceptually and does not stop you from doing anything you have described. It would also be a lot closer to how C4D and Blender handle copying and baking meshes vs instances.
I could see it working how you described if it was an instance not a copy.
Also if you clone something and assign a new material its already going to increase your drawcalls by one and the shared geometry at that point becomes neglagable.All it’s doing is saving memory by sharing geometry it’s not a requirement of the copy and would make more sense for them to be unique if baked
@Pryme8, feel free to add a parameter for it ? Changing the current behavior would introduce a breaking change.
yeah, you’re right, that makes more sense tbh : O
For sure, or maybe even just a documentation update that explains hey you wanna bake something make sure you initialize a whole new class instance of your mesh first.
Not sure which would be the best path.
Or you think we just add a third prop on the mesh clone?
Lets add something in the doc first and see if we need more props next time we see a forum
Issue for it ?
That sounds more reasonable than chaining another prop into clone, it’s late and I’m going back to bed lol.
I’ll do that issue in the morning! Good talk
Just for you Seb <3
Thanks a ton
I wish we will see the PR soon.
Ill get you the document update here today too, I gotta fork the repo.
It says 50 lines, but that is a lie. It was my linter adding the missing jsDocs comments.