ARCHIMATIX PRO Node-based Parametric Modeling for Unity [Unity Awards Finalist]

Someone asked by email if AX could render out textures and generate 2D Sprites. This would not be to difficult to do. Especially considering that this is sort of happening when node thumbnails are rendered. I know this is not a full imposter, but would be great for making 2D games.

 

Breakable handles is pretty cool. AX does a good job at working out the vertices. You can make things I don't think you could do before, like sending a point waaaaay off in the distance.

(not sure why this one is giving me a gap)

 

Fair enough! -- It was my mistake! -- I was suddenly stoked about AX again for a moment there.

Honestly, it would definitely be worthwhile! -- Just think: fancy realtime AX models. AX working for something more than just nice screengrabs!


@roryo --

https://shaderbits.com/blog/octahedral-impostors/

That explains everything about some awesome-looking imposters.

(Here's an image in case others are unaware of how good impostors can look...)

You should check out the documentation for Amplify Imposters too. It pretty much explains the concept in Unity. Doesn't seem that hard to do (if you're good at 3d math), but native integration of imposters in AX could make for some great realtime "wow" possibilities that were only in the realm of imagination before.

If you combined this with a proper C# API to setup the node graphs (and let us attach various models, stamped or not, to the imposter system), I can see AX gaining tons of traction with the new replicators (since there is no standard way to do this imposter system in Unity right now.)

Another option might be an imposter node? -- One that can be applied to (and turned on/off) for resulting meshes?

Just food for thought...

 

I have an unusual editor behavior that I think might be a bug. It's pretty easy to replicate:

1. Open Unity 2017.4.10 and import the latest version of Archimatix.
2. Open the demo scene "VillaApresto".
3. In the Archimatix model editor for AXGroundModel_1, navigate down the groups to find either InnerArcade or PlanRepeater_26. I recommend the Plan Repeater because the problem seems to more reliably replicate with that one.
4. On the selected node, enable Combine Meshes and rebuild the model.

When I do this, the Hierarchy adds a GameObject representing the combined mesh, and named the same as the node, at the top level. AX uses the Unity editor script feature that forces any Hierarchy selections within its own tree to go to the top of the tree (which makes sense), but the apparently-orphaned GameObject from the mesh is still considered part of the AX tree even though it's not actually within that tree. If I click on this top-level GO, my selection is instantly changed to the AX model. This is interesting, but only a problem in that I can't readily inspect this other object to see what it really is.

Furthermore, if I disable and re-enable the Combine Meshes button several times, I get multiple copies of this mysterious top-level GO. If I right-button on any of the copies, it *appears* to let me put the selection there, but the Inspector still shows the editor for the AX model. If I use the right-button context menu to delete any of these dupllicate GOs, the thing actually deleted will be the AX model itself and *not* the GO I appear to have chosen.

Those duplicated GOs appear to be rendering a mesh, because when they are there, the visible object for PlanRepeater_26 has multiple z-fighting instances of itself in the Scene and Game windows.

When I first saw this, I thought I had borked something in my scene, so I deleted the demo scene and reloaded AX, but the problem is replicated even in a fresh install.

Now, unrelated to the above, I also have a question: Is there an easy way to set the Mesh Renderer properties for a complex AX model like this "all at once"? The demo scene has the Mesh Renderers set to no shadows; for testing I am trying to enable shadow casting and receiving for all the meshes, but I don't see an easy way to do that. Am I overlooking something?

 

Update: I discovered that if you enter and exit Play mode, those top-level GOs are "freed" from the AX model and can be conventionally inspected and (apparently) safely deleted. As expected, they are Mesh Renderers with a clone of the generated object from the model build. I deleted all of them and the model is back to normal as long as I don't repeat clicking Combine Meshes.

EDIT: All of the above is true, but it happened just once. After I reported it here, this last paragraph no longer replicates for me. I'm now confused as to what I did differently.

 

AAAUGH! the leaky GO bug!!!

my (not entirely sure) observations:
• have not seen it in 2018, only in 2017.2
• dragging an AX prefab across the Scene View will leak GO in the hierarchy.
• There's a trick to getting them to "release" from their origin (the switch between clicking on it and Unity selects the AX model, vs clicking on it and being able to delete it) at the moment I don't remember what the trick is… When I'm back in 2017 I'll grab some video footage of it….

edit: I don't think it is related to Combine Meshes. I've seen it on very simple models too. with only a few parts.

 

Aha, so I'm not imagining things. Thanks for confirming my findings. I'm actually really glad this is a known bug, because that probably means Rory is already working on it.

Unfortunately, I can't move my scene to Unity 2018 because of a problem with Voxeland, which I'm using for some rock formations. The error I reported last night is in 2017.4.10, by the way.

 

I think Rory skipped straight to developing on 2018, so I'm not sure if he's seen it or not….

I'll start documenting it. Have a project that's stuck in 2017.2, that's where I've seen it. I was actually ignoring it because I wasn't sure if maybe it was a conflict with specific tools or what.

 

I'm seriously considering deleting that one Voxeland object, moving the project to Unity 2018, then remaking the Voxeland object from scratch. It's a complex object, but there's only one. Voxeland itself works fine in Unity 2017 and 2018; the problem is that there's something wrong with my specific object that causes Voxeland's update to fail. There are a lot of rendering fixes in 2018 that I'd like to have, as well as the newer versions of Timeline and Cinemachine (which I will be using heavily as the project moves forward). So it might be worth it, in the long run.

 

Was looking at the new Unity Sprite Shape in beta for 2d and it looks really nice. One feature I liked was ability to change sprites depending on the angle of the curve.

Perhaps I can add to the wishlist an extended version of this for Archimatix or a Archimatized version of this for a 3d Sprite Shapes. Also maybe nice to have access to an array of the points to add your own unique shapes.

 

Archimatix is amazing! I purchased it the first week you released it (awhile ago), but this is the first day I have used it. I am trying to create a pipe network, so I am following your PlanSweep example.

I am using a circle, and I am making 90 degree corners. I need the corners to be rounded. I see a Round join type option when I turn on the Thickness, but that creates a second "model" next to the first, and I don't need it thicker.

I know I can add extruded elements at the corners using PlanRepeater, but I need to start with this simple approach first.

TLR; How do I make a pipe with multiple 90 degree bends?

 

Stop blowing my mind!

 

I am not a brain, I'm basically a kid with an expensive plaything. Did you make a tutorial about how to achieve this or will I need to figure it out?

 

I made a video, but it is PlayMaker-centric. It shows how to make the models animate from one value to another, but the idea is the same, even if the value is updated (and the AX model rebuilt) in 1 frame.
http://community.archimatix.com/ax-beginner/video-tutorial-animating-with-playmaker/#post-281

 

If you add a value to Roundness under the PLAN INPUT, you will see the option for Join Type.
Set Join Type to Round. A smoothness value is added automatically.



You may want to play around with these settings on some test objects, where you can exaggerate the values until you see how the corners "break" – that is, the round parts no longer line up with the straight parts, and sections of the mesh overlap (will look like the pipe is dented or broken, not a clean curve).

It will help to turn on wireframe shading in the Scene View so you can see exactly what is going on with the created vertices.

 

@syscrusher - I can reproduce the bug that generates the extra GameObject. It should be easy to squash. In the meantime, if you can delete the extra GO's by 1. make sure the AXModel is unselected, 2. select the extra GO in the Hierarchy, 3. delete the AXGameObject component. Then you can delete the GO from the scene. You can do this with multiple rogue GO's all at once.

 

Hi @flyingaudio - glad you are finally jumping in!

 

Thanks, Rory. Unfortunately, one of the symptoms of the bug is that those extra GOs can't be selected in the Inspector. If I click on one, the selection jumps back to the AXModel.

BTW, you are very much in my good graces today. The large scene that I'm working on right now was running a fairly outdated version of AX, and I'm preparing to migrate that scene from Unity 2017 to 2018. As part of my prep, I decided to first (after a backup) bring all the scripting assets up to their latest versions to be sure I'm not going to have compiler errors in Unity 2018. I updated Archimatix to the current version, and to my eternal joy all my geometry Just Works! That saved me a lot of pain!

 

@roryo
@wetcircuit thanks for your response. It still doesn't work for me.
Unless I select closed, Roundness is not available, put I need to leave it opened.

If I use Closed for testing, Roundness makes rounded corners when turning left, but they are miter when the turn is right. I feel like I am missing something basic.

Also note, when I change from Closed to Open, JoinType displays with Round in my case (if Roundness had a value other than zero when closed), but the object is back to mitered angles.

I am trying to get rounded corners on this:

 

Yes, there is an oddness that is something basic. you can add only 1 roundness setting on the input when that number is positive you get rounded left-turns, when that number is negative you get rounded right-turns. You can pass the 2D shape through a ShapeOffsetter node to add the other input roundness.

Normally you can do it on the Output Shape setting at the bottom of a 2D Shape..., but FreeCurve is not a normal 2D Shape. I was able to "trick" the Input by hooking up a regular 2D shape (Rectangle node), setting the roundness, then connecting the FreeCurve instead. The roundness settings stayed.

But you can also convert your FreeCurve corners into bezier by Option-Clicking on the corner points in the Scene View (with FreeCurve selected). It's a special case, and it has a few ways to work-around.

 

For clarity, there is no Roundness setting when the Plan is Open, correct?

It sounds like you figured out how to do it in paragraph 2, but I am not following. Could you give a little more detail?

 

This "trick" should totally be a standard option for freecurves.

Sadly, comments like these remind me that I'm still regularly disappointed in their lack of versatility.

Freecurves are one of the few "intuitive" elements of AX that draws in new users, but they also seem to be one of the most overlooked features by @roryo as well.

Also, because freecurves are still not parametric, their use in a parmetric model can be dubious at times. Maybe a special "parametric" freecurve is in order for these sorts of cases?

 

I first connected a Rectangle node, made the settings, then switch to the FreeCurve:

I'm not saying this is the best way to do it, but I understand why you want your pipe Plan to stay as simple as possible. (real life pipes are usually straight pipe connected with T and L parts, and probably collar or fittings at the transitions – and there's probably a dozen ways to do this).

 

Thanks for the gif. I might be doing something wrong, but I get the same results when switching back to an Open plan, all the corners switch back to miter. With your technique, are your corners staying rounded with an Open plan?

To your point about the fittings, I saw how I could do that when I first started, but I needed a quick concept to show somebody, so I thought the "simple" approach would be the quickest, but that is proving to not be true (and we may not want fittings for this, because of accuracy that would be needed if we showed something beyond a stylized view).

 

Or you could learn to use more than just 2 nodes. FreeCurve and PlanSweep aren't the only tools but if they are the only ones you ever use then what do you expect, you will be limited.

As your models become more sophisticated (ie: permanent) then you switch over to Turtle script, like this:


If you are taking the time/effort to clean up the decimal places on the FreeCurve parameters, then you can spend the same amount of time/effort to copy the values over to a Turtle script and create a custom shape node in the graph. Any of these values can be parameterized by replacing the number in the script with a parameter name, then click the [+] button to add the new parameters. Voila, you have a custom node that does whatever you want.



FreeCurve is just one tool for drawing quick outlines in the Scene View. I get that you want a 2-node Archimatix that does everything, but that's really limiting yourself.

And please, if I hear another grown-man say he can't handle Turtle script… It was written for 8yos. If you can't handle Turtle hang up your hat and go home.

 

I was looking at your code examples in Turtle. It's been a very long time since I saw this language mentioned -- the last time I encountered it was in Byte magazine when Turtle was first created, around the 1980s if I remember right.

I thought I remembered Turtle using relative coordinates, like "forward", "left", and "right", rather than absolute Cartesian coordinates. But clearly your example uses absolute coords (well, absolute within the coordinate system of the curve generator). Did Turtle change in its modern incarnations, or was this capability there all along and I just don't remember?

 

Rory uses his his own Turtle (based on a some latter iteration?). He has some of his own instructions and abbreviations, but he also added in some MathF functions and there is if/endif and looping…

It still uses the turtle-relative commands: fwd, right, etc… but "mov" and "drw" use X-Y positions.
It's not a difficult scripting language is all I'm saying, LOL

They are listed here:
http://www.archimatix.com/manual/archimatix-turtle-script-api

 

What I am trying to replicate is an example on the Archimatix site, http://www.archimatix.com/nodes/plansweep
The bottom section, Open Plan with Closed Section, has an example.
The part that I can't replicate is the FreeCurve. The example has smooth corners in the thumbnail, mine have right angles. The plan is open, but with rounded corners.

http://www.archimatix.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Archimatix-2017-12-31_12-46-01_PM.jpg

 

According to wikipedia, it's even older than Woodstock

 

Individual corners (FreeCurve Points) can be converted to bezier… OPTION-CLICK on the corner dot. Then drag the bezier handle….



You will need to maybe add extra points on either end of a corner to "lock" the straight parts of pipe before you change the corner to bezier

 

I see. Thanks. That's approach won't work, since every corner would need to be touched. From all your help and insight, it sounds like my best approach, at this point, is adding some extruded element to the corners. It would be great if rounded corners worked in an open plan (I wasn't able to get your trick going).

 

I was able to find an online archive of the Byte magazine where I first heard of it: https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1982-08

 

Would writing an addon script to touch every corner in an automated way work for you? One of the nice things about a lot of Unity assets, including AX, is access to C# source.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. That could be an option.

 

New issue. In my quick test this weekend, I didn't notice that PlanSweep is only using a Vector2 for its points. Is there a way to do a sweep with world points?

 

omg that dot-matrix printer paper! LOL

This webpage tells a great history of Turtle and Logo, even going back to 2 Ur-robots from the 1940s
http://roamerrobot.tumblr.com/post/23079345849/the-history-of-turtle-robots

 

you mean like: X, Y, Z…? Not yet.



PhysicsRope node in the current AX beta shows a vector3 parameter, so that wheel has been invented, at least.

 

@flyingaudio Currently you can use the PlanDeformer to bend a mesh along a 3rd Plan… You need to subdivide the mesh before connecting it to the PlanDeformer. It is a little wonky to use.

 

Maybe the PhysicsRope would do it. Turn off physics, set slack to zero. The PlanSweep with a 3rd dimension would do it, because then you would have the option to do the extra pipe fittings.

 

Also, I'll see your "...written for 8yos..." and raise you a "preschoolers". On page 117 of that same Byte issue, there is a photo (credited to Texas Instruments) of preschoolers programming in Logo on a TI 99/4.

As an aside, I'll also mention that this issue features a full-page ad in which William Shatner says of the Commodore VIC-20 that it's "the only computer you'll need for years to come." How'd that work out for you, Bill?

 

I dunno but in the TV advert he seems to be predicting the touchpads and double clicking of the future, with his mysterious finger gestures as he rubs the top of the unit

 

Agree, I can't get it working on other open shapes either. It's not a workaround. I was mistaken…
No idea why it doesn't round open shapes. That seems like a bug?

 

"… the WHOLE FAMILY can learn to program…"

 

Inspiration for procedural pipes

 

That's sweet. I think Archimatix is really close. I am floored by what Archimatix can do. To start with, all I would need is Vector3 for the FreeCurve, then I could make a layout. The other features, of adding elements at corners would work for now.

 

Fair, but also keep in mind that it's not the 80's (or 60's?) anymore -- and, as far as I know, the 8yos you speak of that programmed in turtlescript have all grown-up and are designing the complex tools like Unity and Blender so one does not have to struggle with that particular brand of "visual design" ever again.

And besides -- my opinion is this:
People who bought AX as a visual tool should not (imo) have to copy/paste numbers manually to get a visual result in a visual tool.

We use computers to aid us in our designs for a reason. One of those reasons is to compute the mathematics of our designs for us, and to make the creative aspects of designing less-tedious (by eliminating steps) while also making the act of iterating on that design's overall form less destructive and easier to manage for the user (i.e. the user is not meant to make things easier on the computer -- the computer is meant to make things easier on the user.)
Therefore, logically, it is not wrong of me to expect the tool I use to do the computing for me in a way which will reduce (or eliminate!) the effort I personally need to exert on (automatable) tasks that the computer is good at and can easily do for me -- which leaves me more time to do the kinds of tasks that humans are good at (such as designing things.)

It isn't hard to learn.
But, depending on your setup, it can be very tedious to do.

This is wrong. I only want each tool in AX to become as powerful (and as flexible) as it can (reasonably) become.

Besides, is it really that unreasonable to ask for a Freecurve tool (in a parametric modeler) be both parametric and have the option to behave the same way other shapes behave -- all without jumping through many unintended (and often seemingly-unrelated) "hoops" first?

I really like AX, but it gets tedious in other (very unexpected) ways. -- Like this one.

 

Hello,

Is it possible to access the vertices position of 2D shape on runtime via C#? It would be awesome if I can do this since I could use Archimatix Pro as 2D drawing tool in a game as well.

 

Parameters on shapes can be exposed on the inspector. Then you can create a runtime controller so scripts/playmaker/etc can control those parameters….

I think you will have to investigate whether AX can be your 2D drawing tool.
It's possible to write your own nodes and a C# API has been mentioned....

 

Dude, "struggle"...? 8yos. You gotta let it go.

You are claiming Turtle is harder than Blender? HAHAHAHA I have read some DUMB comments on the internet but that one deserves teddybears and flowers by the side of the road where it crashed and burned.

Do you mean TYPING is tedious, because yeah pushing buttons on a keyboard sux.
But Turtle? It is seriously just the variables and X-Y positions typed in a certain order. There is no syntax at all. There are like 12 Turtle commands.

Do not fear the Turtle. You can make surprisingly cool things with elegant minimalist script. Just take any node and start hacking it. You do not need to know what you are doing or have a plan.



If I ever finish this Expressions tutorial, I will try to make a Turtle video – but seriously this is not hard. I just opened the Sector node and hacked a line, now I am getting these awesome shapes.

 

Wow, straight to flaming huh? -- Nice one. -- I guess making an "ass" out of "u" and "me" is what you do better than art.


I'll take the bait though. -- We've gotta give the internet a good show right??


First off:

Nowhere in that sentence (or anywhere in my above post) do I say anything CLOSE to Turtle being "harder than Blender" -- in fact, I say the exact opposite about Turtle here:

And regarding the "8yos programming in Turtle/Logo" thing... I simply said those kids are probably the ones who grew up to make the innovative "visual tools" (like Unity and Blender) we're finally seeing these days.

Why did I say they are probably the ones making these tools?

Because they probably realized how "DUMB" it was to use text, code, and numbers to draw pictures when your hand (and a pencil/crayon) was easier to use and worked a lot better.

Maybe your version of "DUMB comment" was meant to be relative to your own misunderstandings and assumptions of what I was saying?

Again -- I never said it was hard.

I said it was unnecessarily TEDIOUS.


And speaking of things being unnecessarily TEDIOUS...
-- I'm opting out of this one-way "discussion" with you.
You can even "win" if you want -- I don't really care.

I stand by my argument that using text/code/numbers to draw simple pictures is unintuitive and "DUMB", but you (and others) can believe what you want. :/