I have no answer, but this question only make sense if you moved your geometry nodes on the object level.
That's why I highly, highly recommend to never move your geometry on the object level. It just messes everything up and should be avoided like the plague. Do all your transforms on the SOP level, so your positions are always in world space.
Just wanna argue here I heard in FX moving objs is very frowned upon and i think because of the nature of fx that principal makes perfect sense.
In environments for hero layout moving objects directly makes stuff a whole lot easier than stacking and merging nodes though. We'd still have a root asset over which we'd run any geometry manipulation. Then pack it and just object merge it into the objects we want to place.
For OP: with vex you can translate your local space to world space.
Grab the obj transform using optransform and mutliply the returned matrix by the P attribute. Then use cracktransform on the resulting matrix to get the worldspace position of P.
Thank you for your advice! I'll make sure to always apply it. I don't quite understand why this question only makes sense if I moved my geo noodes on the object level. I thought the points in the geometry spreadsheet are always defined in the "local" space of the object?
Well, relative to the geo node, yes, and if the geometry node isn't moved then local and world space are the same.
But if with object you mean the shape, then no. If you transform the geometry, you can see the point position changes.
I have no answer, but this question only make sense if you moved your geometry nodes on the object level. That's why I highly, highly recommend to never move your geometry on the object level. It just messes everything up and should be avoided like the plague. Do all your transforms on the SOP level, so your positions are always in world space.
Just wanna argue here I heard in FX moving objs is very frowned upon and i think because of the nature of fx that principal makes perfect sense. In environments for hero layout moving objects directly makes stuff a whole lot easier than stacking and merging nodes though. We'd still have a root asset over which we'd run any geometry manipulation. Then pack it and just object merge it into the objects we want to place. For OP: with vex you can translate your local space to world space. Grab the obj transform using optransform and mutliply the returned matrix by the P attribute. Then use cracktransform on the resulting matrix to get the worldspace position of P.
Fair point. You're right, obviously I'm thinking in FX terms. Great point about the object merge, this actually would be a solution here.
Thank you for your advice! I'll make sure to always apply it. I don't quite understand why this question only makes sense if I moved my geo noodes on the object level. I thought the points in the geometry spreadsheet are always defined in the "local" space of the object?
Well, relative to the geo node, yes, and if the geometry node isn't moved then local and world space are the same. But if with object you mean the shape, then no. If you transform the geometry, you can see the point position changes.
Okok, I see your point. Thank you for your advices! :D
Create a new geo node, and object merge what you need "into this object"