Feature request: Bound sub-tree

NodeCanvas Forums General Discussion Feature request: Bound sub-tree

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13944
    timv
    Participant

    Bound trees are great since you can reference scene objects directly without issues. SubTrees are currently Asset-only. Would you consider bound sub-trees? I think this could reduce the difficulties in finding a good layout for large trees, while keeping the benefits of the bound BTs.

    #13954
    Gavalakis
    Keymaster

    Hey Tim,

    Bound Sub-Graphs (for all graph systems) are indeed planned for version 3 and are of highest priority πŸ™‚

    Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/97q2Rjh

    #13974
    timv
    Participant

    Great! Do you think it would be possible to reuse the same bound subgraph multiple times? That would make it even more useful. (and also even more similar to asset graphs)

    #13979
    Gavalakis
    Keymaster

    Hey,

    Do you mean something like selecting from an existing bound graph (if any) that the tree is already using in some other SubTree node from within a list from example?

    That is a good suggestion, but I can’t promise this is going to be the case in the first iteration. I plan for bound graphs to be serialized as part of the parent graph they live within (instead of within the node), so your suggestion could be made possible or expanded up after the initial implementation is done.

    Please let me know if that is what you indeed meant though πŸ™‚
    Thanks!

    Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/97q2Rjh

    #13983
    timv
    Participant

    Do you mean something like selecting from an existing bound graph (if any) that the tree is already using in some other SubTree node from within a list from example?

    Yes, I think we mean the same thing. πŸ™‚ Multiple SubTree nodes within a BT using a bound sub graph that is only defined once. Either one of the nodes would have to be the definition, and other nodes would point to that definition, or they could all have shared ownership over the definition. (the second option is probably easier for end-users)

    That is a good suggestion, but I can’t promise this is going to be the case in the first iteration.

    No problem, I understand.

    Thanks!
    Tim

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.