Search this Topic:
Feb 3 11 1:40 PM
Ran13 wrote:Fireskull wrote:Hi,For huge models, having multiple UV maps per models would be great. Some areas of a model need about 1024x1024 while another area may beg for 2048x2048. Some models might need several UV maps. Clinton
UV map in face mode...
one material/texture per "UV map"
Then use "select by material" to select each face "set"... enter UV map mode from face mode & only the selected faces will appear in the UV editor.... effectively, separate "UV maps" for each material.
You view the applied texture for that "face set" by dragging the texture from the outliner onto the UV edit window.
You can have as many different UV face groups as you need.
Yes, if you enter the UV map editor from object (body) mode, all the different UV mappings will display overlapping one another, but like the doc said when I said, "Doc, it hurts when I do this...!"
"Well, don't DO that!"
Fireskull wrote:Hi,For huge models, having multiple UV maps per models would be great. Some areas of a model need about 1024x1024 while another area may beg for 2048x2048. Some models might need several UV maps. Clinton
Feb 3 11 2:17 PM
Feb 4 11 12:23 PM
Feb 4 11 1:53 PM
Feb 4 11 3:38 PM
Feb 4 11 3:51 PM
Feb 4 11 4:33 PM
Thanks Ran13 and dgud for these excellent explanations!
One more question though: isn't it, that each 3D vertex has (potentially) a list/set of UV coordinates, one for every face the vertex is part of?
Besides, these very helpful descriptions shouldn't get lost, but they don't belong into this thread. Maybe pp can take some time and move the relevant messages over into a new thread in "AutoUV Project", just leaving a pointer/link here?
Feb 4 11 5:40 PM
Feb 5 11 4:50 AM
Feb 5 11 7:59 AM
Just to clarify, I was NOT trouncing Wings3D. I would not be without it, I love Wings3d... most of the time. I just feel that the methods of getting to the UV mapping could be made clearer - some parts could even be added to a menu as currently they are hidden.I am thinking for instance of what happens when you try to create a UV map for selected faces of an object - when you have already UV Mapped some faces of that same object.If you don't realise you have to right click the 2nd time (and subsequent times too) if you want to make a different UV map - (so you just left click as normal) that's when you get the messy looking map with multiple faces layered on top of each other. This layered map is okay if you have many faces that actually need the exact same texture. (Otherwise right clicking will allow you to have a new map for the selected faces - plus I always rename the _auv material and the _auv texture to be different from the 1st set of faces UV mapped on this object - so long as those two (the material and the texture) 's names match it will work just fine.Sometimes I rename the 1st UV map and texture too, this works too leaving the default name of the UV Map to go back to (for instance) Cube_auv. (if you happen to be working on something that was originally a cube and that you have not (naughty) renamed to a more descriptive name)What I'd like to see changed in Wings3D's UV mapping is to make all this more accessible to newbies - i.e. to have a menu for UV Mapping where you can see what does what - instead of what we presently have, where these things are hidden away.I know that a lot of information is in the bottom bar in Wings3D but my eye does not naturally take in that area of the screen when I'm concentrating on the model - putting it on a menu would make it so much more easily accessible by newbies. This is just a suggestion - no need to eat me.
Feb 5 11 8:22 AM
Feb 5 11 8:57 AM
They say, you better listen to them if you want to lead the field. Companies have died because they did not adapt to the information given by sincere customers. Anyway...
Feb 5 11 12:44 PM
Ran13,It is just a fact that UV buttons are in different menus/ windows in Wing3D.Also, material buttons/functions are spread across different windows. All the buttons/ functions which effect Materials should be in one window.The info line is limited in its scope and many times the gaps can be overcome with structure in a menu, including descriptive labelling of buttons/functions."A picture is worth a thousand words" and well organized menus have the same effect like a completed puzzle with a picture when all parts are together in one location.Intuitive menus show the connections in the organization within the window.The info line is like looking through a slit opening in an army tank, while well organized menus are like the tank commander looking out the top hatch at his whole surroundings.Clinton
Feb 16 11 9:42 PM
I imagine the possibility to have comments on objects (and groups, see Geometry Graph window). Essentially plain text with some very basic formatting capabilities, mainly paragraphs and, maybe, bold/italic/underline.
Such a feature might not be very useful for most modelers "just" making an organic model in 30 minutes or an afternoon and then go on to rig and animate in Blender/Messiah/<other>. However architectural work (say a battleship, some house or product construction), often has several distinct parts.
One can name the parts/objects (and the groups) differently already and that is often good enough ... however long strings in the name (though there seems to be no practical limit, except memory or 2^16) are rather inconvenient:
As you can see, long names are possible, but overlay the icons in the Geometry window visually and don't help there really (though the icons still work). And even in the editing dialog the display isn't nice, try for yourself and also move the dialog around (ESCAPE saves you, when in doubt).
I imagine the naming dialog having another field "Comment" with multiple lines, dialog/field sizable W/H (and having a scroll bar, when necessary), so that the name can be kept short, and the comment can be written easily, long lines would be broken just visually, RETURN would make a new paragraph. Other formatting might have keyboard shortcuts (CTRL+B, CTRL+I, CTRL+U) and the info line would tell about these.
To show the comment, one could open the "Rename" dialog and just escape after reading.
But what I really expect from this feature are self contained "documented" Wings files for tutorials, so that there is seldom a need for videos, animated gifs, and other means of combining descriptions, media and Wings files.
Say, I wanna demonstrate, how easy one can do a basic moebius (or whatever): I could do this all inside Wings by duplicating/saving each essential intermediate object and commenting the steps taken, to achieve the step/object/group. Then upload to some place and let others try.
What do you think, best regards, Georg
Feb 18 11 8:37 PM
I'm missing an additional option "Not Exactly" in the dialog coming up after "Select > By > Vertices With > Specify...". Currently there are only the options More/Less/Exactly. Reason: I wanna select ALL the poles in some face region of a complex object/base mesh, e.g. the brow section of a head (to just see the poles there, or maybe giving them a vertex color as marker "TODO").
As is (1.4.1), one can easily select all the poles of a complete object by "Select > By > Vertices With > 4 Edges", then inverting the selection (CTRL+SHIFT+I).
To select the good aka "not a pole" vertices of only a part of a mesh, one can select the faces in the part of interest, then call "Select > By > Vertices With > 4 Edges" and, voila, only the good vertices in the former face selection are selected, the rest of the mesh is left alone. This might also be a feature not well known by many ... or is it just me? But when one now does the inverse selection, not only the poles in the region of interest are selected, but also ALL of the other vertices of the mesh.
Experiment yourself. For convenience here is a stock grid *.wings sample file. One of the middle faces subdivided, some few edges operated on with "Crease", the face region of interest already highlighted. There are poles of valence 3 and 5, find and select them all at once (without using Union/Subtract/Intersect Group in the Select menu [or manual selection in this simple sample]).
Adding the suggested option "Not Exactly" to the dialog would resolve that: one would be left with just the poles in the part of interest.
Besides, the default of 2 vertices in that dialog should be changed to 4, because many modelers have it about "pole free/less" meshes?
If I'm "above the sky" or plainly wrong again, please stop me.
Mar 18 11 8:25 PM
Mar 19 11 4:39 AM
2) View support for more than one texture per object. (where an object has more than one material.
Mar 19 11 9:04 AM
Mar 19 11 9:50 AM
Mar 28 11 9:12 PM
dgud wrote:4) See the snapshot thread in programming section
Otherwise good ideas which we have thought of but requires a lot of work.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.