You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, if you want to modify the inputs, you have to delete, reroute and rename all inputs all over again. If you make a mistake during it, you have to start over yet again. This may not be a problem, but with > 10 inputs, where the subgraphs excel, it becomes very tedious very quickly.
What do you think of having a separate node for each input? The order of the inputs could be determined by the y-coodrinate of the node. In addition, there could easily be a string field where you could overwrite the field settings, like {forceInput: True} or {"min": 0, "max": 1, "step": 0.05, "default": 0.5}, which would fix the other issue I opened.
Having multiple nodes for inputs would not look as clean, but functionality wise it would be a much needed improvement. Also, having multiple nodes for outputs would make sense as well, but that hasn't been nearly as big of a problem for me, since I usually don't need to modify the outputs very much.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, if you want to modify the inputs, you have to delete, reroute and rename all inputs all over again. If you make a mistake during it, you have to start over yet again. This may not be a problem, but with > 10 inputs, where the subgraphs excel, it becomes very tedious very quickly.
What do you think of having a separate node for each input? The order of the inputs could be determined by the y-coodrinate of the node. In addition, there could easily be a string field where you could overwrite the field settings, like
{forceInput: True}
or{"min": 0, "max": 1, "step": 0.05, "default": 0.5}
, which would fix the other issue I opened.Having multiple nodes for inputs would not look as clean, but functionality wise it would be a much needed improvement. Also, having multiple nodes for outputs would make sense as well, but that hasn't been nearly as big of a problem for me, since I usually don't need to modify the outputs very much.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: