Simulation Nodes Have Landed! 

Omg your the RU-vidr guy

RU-vidR GUYY!!!! Love your videos so much mann, really top tier stuff

You can simulate delta-time and sub-steps by creating a simulation step node group with a delta-time value input. The delta-time input should affect the scale of the velocity offset at the beginning of the step as well as the size of the updated velocity vector at the end of the step. Sub-stepping is simulated by chaining multiple of these simulation step node groups within the simulation loop :)

The simulation nodes aren't constrained to realtime, and work in fixed timesteps.

I would love loops like that as well, I’ve seen them mentioned in design docs and hope they become a reality!

@@seanterelle Repeat Zones aren't just in design docs, they literally already exist in the Blender 4.0.0 Beta.

For sure! When the velocity is clamped to the particle radius it greatly reduces the possibility of particles moving "through" each other during the simulation. If there velocities are larger, say four times their radius, then particles on trajectories where they should collide may end up passing over the point at which they would intersect. Clamping the velocities is a quick way of making sure those collisions occur, so the simulation ends up being more stable, but less physically accurate.

@@seanterelle thank you so much!

You can add sockets like that in the ‘simulation state’ drop-down in the ‘node’ tab of the menu that comes up on the right-hand side of the geometry node editor when you press ‘n’ or click the little arrow tab on the top right of the editor area. You also need to have either the simulation input or output node selected.

yeah i agree. geometry nodes feels more limiting and confusing than anything. doing things like this is a piece of cake in almost any programming language, and its way easier to understand the code than it is to understand this node network.

I feel the total opposite way about this. I suppose everyone has their preferences, but geometry nodes feels very intuitive to me with its visual flow of blocks and wires compared to lines of code. With the way simulation nodes are heading now, doing a complex simulation could be as simple as obtaining a pre-made node group that accepts multiple inputs for simulation objects & colliders. This is something I've been dreaming of ever since geonodes came out. I feel like any confusion about it is basically just due to not understanding certain aspects of geometry nodes, of which I'm sure the overall literacy will improve going forward.

@@ashlee3dee Yeah I agree with that. There aren't really any intuitive indicators when there are conflicts with field outputs & non-field inputs for example. You'll just get a red connection & a little warning sign on the node, but no explanation as to why the connection doesn't work. Maybe over time the UI will get better about stuff like that

Yes! Definitely possible

No. This uses simulation nodes, which is currently only available in the 3.6 alpha.

@@thefaketomato many thanks. I'll wait for official release. However, thank you very much for the lesson.