1
$\begingroup$

I have this voxelizer modifier setup which works for the rotated cube nicely as shown but I have to lower the version to Blender 3.2 so I cannot use Mesh to Volume node. Is Points to Volume the only alternative? When I use Points to Volume it requires me to input a Radius but putting radius will give this weird billowing cube. And setting it to zero will make the object disappear. How do I solve this?

enter image description here

UPDATE: I realized as @Gordon Brinkmann has mentioned, this may indeed not be possible to do a one is to one conversion for this node. I will have to completely change the approach without using Mesh to Volume node.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm no expert in these things, so I cannot give a real answer... I can only imagine that it might not be possible to completely convert everything to an older version of Blender, because some things only have changed in how they could be done with different nodes, but sometimes new features have been added that simply were not possible before. Which means there is no "translation" from new nodes to old nodes. $\endgroup$
    – Gordon Brinkmann
    Commented Mar 11 at 7:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The mesh to volume is filling the source object (cube shape) with points so it gives you a box shape full of points but the Points to volume is just giving you the original 26 points of your cube, which you scale up to try and fill the cube shape. $\endgroup$
    – 3pointedit
    Commented Mar 11 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ @GordonBrinkmann yes i understand this limitation but i was hoping that perhaps there is a feasible solution i have not thought about. $\endgroup$
    – Megan Love
    Commented Mar 11 at 8:28

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
+100
$\begingroup$

A possible way is to use distribute points on faces with a density that ensure there is (most likely) no hole.

There will be some inner geometry and some non manifold parts (if you merge at the end), but that could do it:

enter image description here

Distribute points on faces using voxel size input as density factor multiplied by (say) 10.

Round the positions considering also the wanted voxel size.

Merge the points.

Instanciate and, eventually, realize and merge.

(Blender 3.2)

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
0
$\begingroup$

You need to fill your cube with more points to simulate the mesh to volume function. Subdivide the source then shrink the point size.

add more points

alter point size to fill object

I've added a scale point size function to fill the object and limit the number of subdivisions

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Hello thank you for your post. This will leave holes when you change the voxel size. Hmm also this is pretty heavy processing. So I guess there is no other way especially with the subdivide modifier which by level 5 could be pretty heavy for bigger models? $\endgroup$
    – Megan Love
    Commented Mar 11 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ I expect that the mesh to volume node is generating the same number of points so should be equally heavy? Perhaps deleting a parts (edges/faces) after subd would help? $\endgroup$
    – 3pointedit
    Commented Mar 11 at 8:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ because some users are still on lower versions. $\endgroup$
    – Megan Love
    Commented Mar 11 at 12:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hi @3pointedit thanks for the update. Unfortunately this approach will not work consistently due to the magic numbers like 6.7 etc which still can cause holes depending how big you will scale and apply the scale. And that is only tested on a cube. More organic models will be even more problematic. As Gordon has mentioned in the comments in my question, there is no one to one conversion. I was assuming I could just replace the node but in reality my entire setup needs to be changed to allow voxelizing. But I appreciate the time and effort :) $\endgroup$
    – Megan Love
    Commented Mar 13 at 0:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes that's totally fair $\endgroup$
    – 3pointedit
    Commented Mar 13 at 0:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .