How do I plot a 2D parametric equation in Geometry Nodes?

Question

Summary: How to graph a 2D parametric equation using Geometry Nodes?

Details:

This question asks about plotting 2D functions of the form $y = F(x)$ using Geometry Nodes, and of course the simplest way to do that would be with a node group like this:

where the Power math node is replaced by a selection of math nodes to calculate the function of interest.

But that won't work for a parametric equation, one where both $x$ and $y$ are calculated as functions of another variable, $x = f(u)$; $y = g(u)$; $a \le u \le b$; because the above group relies on x having the same value as the X coordinates of the Mesh Line.

I know this can be done by other means. For instance, the Math Function -> XYZ surface can take a parametric form and produce a 2D graph by setting V step to 1, as in this example of the parametric form of a circle:

But I want to know if this can be done using Geometry Nodes. I'll accept either an answer that describes a general method or an answer that conclusively demonstrates that it can't be done.

Answer 1

Parametric functions fall absolutely naturally into the lap of GN, by setting X,Y and Z of a curve's points as some function of its Spline Parameter

• Create a Curve Primitive > Line
• Resample it to the desired resolution
• Set Position each of the curve's points, as some function of its 0-1 ('Factor') Spline Parameter

Here's a parametric Trefoil Knot:

Answer 2

You may use an Accumulate Field node for u, calculate x and y, combine them to a vector and set the position on the points of a Mesh Line:

You should be aware, that the last point is not exactly the end of one cycle. Instead, it is placed at 0.1*64 = 6,4 which corresponds to about 366,69°.

This allows you, to animate the step size of the Accumulate Field node as well:

It should be mentioned, that changing the step size in this way, does not produce the original parametric equation. It is like sampling over this equation and connecting the sampling points.

Upper and lower bound for u

If you would like to have exactly one circle of 360° or 2pi, then you need to limit u to a range of 2pi. Generalized, as asked by Marti Fouts, you may limit u by two parameters a and b like this:

Place a Map Range behind u and use the Result as input for both, x and y. Set From Min to 0, From Max to (Resolution – 1)*Increment Size and connect To Min and To Max to the parameters a and b.

You need to subtract 1 from the resolution, because u will be 0*Increment Size for the first point and (Resolution-1)*Increment Size for the Resolution-th point.

Even simpler

If you want to stick to the original parametric equation and map the range of u, it would be simpler to skip the Accumulate Field node and use the index instead, as proposed by Markus von Broady:

Answer 3

Update: André Zmuda has kindly taken the time to improve his original answer, and describe the improvements in comments. I've changed this summary to reflect that.

Introduction

André Zmuda and Robin Betts have each provided good answers using different approaches.

I would like to accept both answers but I can only accept one. So I am upvoting both and accepting Betts' (for a reason that has since been corrected.)

Here I present each method, massaged slightly to be closer to the formulation of the $x = F(y)$ node group in the question. See the individual answers for more details.

Zmuda's method

I have made a slight change, introducing a Map Range math node so that the conditions $a \le u \le $b can be made apparent.

Zmuda's method uses an Accumulate Field Node to generate values in the range of 0 to (Value * the maximum index in the geometry). In this Node group the maximum index is controlled by the Count input of the Mesh Line node.

My small modification maps that range to the U range for the equation by using a Map Range node, as mentioned above.

Betts' example is actually a 3D curve, but Zmuda's method could generate a 3D curve by adding a Curve to Mesh node after the Set Position node.

Betts' method

As with Zmuda's method I have introduced a Map Range for the same reason. Betts' method uses a Curve Line rather than a Mesh Line. I have also added a Curve to Mesh Node after the Set Position node to give a closer similarity to the original node group. I also reduced his elegant 3D trefoil equation to a simple 2D circle to match the other examples.

Betts' method uses a Spline Parameter node to generate the $u$ values. The manual says this about the Factor output:

When the node is used on the point domain, the value is the portion of the spline’s total length at each control point. On the spline domain it is the portion of the curve’s total length at the start of the spline.

Similarities and differences

Both methods rely on some form of generator to create the u values. After that the math would be the same for a given function in either method. Zmuda's method works strictly with meshes; while Betts' opted for curves. Either would serve my purpose, since there are Mesh to Curve and Curve to Mesh nodes.

Bonus for reading this far:

Here is a blend file containing both methods; as modified by me to match the original example in the question. Update: I have edited the node group for Zmuda's method to incorporate the fix he gave in comments.