Totally agree, the fact for me is that the demo on steam works wonders. People buy the full version and get different results, for a 60€ price tag even. Not acceptable in my book. Also the fix seems minor, there is just some versions that need to be checked and corrected.
@DerPimpvater yeah, it happened to me as well, played around with Steam demo version > got the result that I like > purchased the Gumroad full version > IPT give an unusable result. If your UV consist of many angular shape/ boxy shape, it's fine, but when come to curve/ not so straight UV island, it struggle to pack it nicely. But then again, 3ds Max can give a decent result too when i comes to packing a boxy UV island..
@Revel Right now I am just packing myself, that UV I showed was the difference between 5min in iPackThat and the one I made now myself took me probably around 2 hours. So the time-safe is HUGE when you think about all the models you create over time. I just wish this would be fixed so I wouldn't have to think "Well iPackThat can just do this in 2min" while making manual packs!
after having played around with iPackThat`s demo on steam a few days ago and getting some great results with it, I decided to purchase the full version on Gumroad. After the install It seems that the packing algorithm is entirely different. Below you can see the result from the full version compared to the tests I did in thee demo version on steam. Both ran for 10 minutes with the same settings. I am quite disappointed after spending around 60€ on the full version.
If someone has had similar issues regarding the demo-version and the full gumroad version, please let me know if you found a fix!
Regards,
A sad Packer
have you tried packing your model in maya 2017? models with that amount of shells normally give better or same results than ipackthat.
Strange, this is on average what I get on the gumroad version too, I remember trying the steam version and it packed it much nicer, thought I was the only one seeing this.
after having played around with iPackThat`s demo on steam a few days ago and getting some great results with it, I decided to purchase the full version on Gumroad. After the install It seems that the packing algorithm is entirely different. Below you can see the result from the full version compared to the tests I did in thee demo version on steam. Both ran for 10 minutes with the same settings. I am quite disappointed after spending around 60€ on the full version.
If someone has had similar issues regarding the demo-version and the full gumroad version, please let me know if you found a fix!
Regards,
A sad Packer
have you tried packing your model in maya 2017? models with that amount of shells normally give better or same results than ipackthat.
Strange, this is on average what I get on the gumroad version too, I remember trying the steam version and it packed it much nicer, thought I was the only one seeing this.
Oh yes, the Steam demo version achieves better results and does this on average 7 minutes faster out of the total 10 minutes that I had it running for.
after having played around with iPackThat`s demo on steam a few days ago and getting some great results with it, I decided to purchase the full version on Gumroad. After the install It seems that the packing algorithm is entirely different. Below you can see the result from the full version compared to the tests I did in thee demo version on steam. Both ran for 10 minutes with the same settings. I am quite disappointed after spending around 60€ on the full version.
If someone has had similar issues regarding the demo-version and the full gumroad version, please let me know if you found a fix!
Regards,
A sad Packer
hi, I'm using Ipackthat too, i didn't notice differences or it being worse than demo (but i'm using *steam* full version) But i notice in your screenshot, it starts (original state) differently , not sure if it matters, but the original used with demo is already packed inside holes, while start condition for full vers. is a much worse packing ... won't that affect result ? starting from a better pack?
Too bad about lack of dev's response anyway, this app has been useful for me, with Blender and its good unwrapping but terrible packing, i came here to keep updated and i'd like to count on this tool (and looking into improving my exports to it .. like ways to keep small gaps on hard edges while repacking, without getting tiny pieces everywhere)
after having played around with iPackThat`s demo on steam a few days ago and getting some great results with it, I decided to purchase the full version on Gumroad. After the install It seems that the packing algorithm is entirely different. Below you can see the result from the full version compared to the tests I did in thee demo version on steam. Both ran for 10 minutes with the same settings. I am quite disappointed after spending around 60€ on the full version.
If someone has had similar issues regarding the demo-version and the full gumroad version, please let me know if you found a fix!
Regards,
A sad Packer
hi, I'm using Ipackthat too, i didn't notice differences or it being worse than demo (but i'm using *steam* full version) But i notice in your screenshot, it starts (original state) differently , not sure if it matters, but the original used with demo is already packed inside holes, while start condition for full vers. is a much worse packing ... won't that affect result ? starting from a better pack?
Too bad about lack of dev's response anyway, this app has been useful for me, with Blender and its good unwrapping but terrible packing, i came here to keep updated and i'd like to count on this tool (and looking into improving my exports to it .. like ways to keep small gaps on hard edges while repacking, without getting tiny pieces everywhere)
No that is just a display thing from my side, both were packed with the same starting condition. This is more to demonstrate the end-conditions. The packing algorithm(which you can see adjust after every pack)on the Gumroad version is noticeably different than the demo version.
I see, with same start condition then it is very visible in the wasted % number (much worse for gumroad vers.) and the thin frame parts are also filled much less .. that's annoying ! I got it from Steam just because of Gumroad issues with paypal, but otherwise i'd have got it there for simpler/reliable license system.
@DerPimpvater If you want me to try a decent pack in maya with that model just send me a link and i give it a shot. Than i could tell you what thbest settings were.
@DerPimpvater If you want me to try a decent pack in maya with that model just send me a link and i give it a shot. Than i could tell you what thbest settings were.
@Phoenix995 Nah thanks man i`m good, I will just resort to what I have been doing over the last 7 years. Manually pack stuff Pack done and texturing done on the model anyways ( https://www.artstation.com/artwork/b39vo)
The demo version was giving me better results as well (I'm also a Gumroad buyer). It seems the actual version has an issue with curves and slanted edges, it leaves margins way too big around those.
Which is a pity, because I still use it a lot. It's either this or pack by hand. I don't use maya, (and I can't justify getting it just to use the packing), so I don't really have any other option.
Which is a major bummer, since iPackthat is *almost* there. Too bad Snoelk seems to be busy with other things
I talked to Snoelk two days ago and he said there is an update in the works for this week if nothing goes wrong! Thought i`d let the people here know that he is at least working on things
That probably means your UVs aren't scaled up large enough as a whole to trigger it to pack correctly. Take everything and scale it up by about 400% and see if that helps.
@DerPimpvater If you want me to try a decent pack in maya with that model just send me a link and i give it a shot. Than i could tell you what thbest settings were.
Hi! Do u know how to pack in maya with overlapped uv shells?
@DerPimpvater If you want me to try a decent pack in maya with that model just send me a link and i give it a shot. Than i could tell you what thbest settings were.
Hi! Do u know how to pack in maya with overlapped uv shells?
i would pack it without those overlapping uv shells. afterwards you can use "modify -> snap and stack"
Hi Christian, the Gumroad version can be updated to 1.7.5962.29094 the exe is from 30.04.2016. Somehow there so far never was access to the beta versions, would be nice thou if Gumroad users where able to use the version which was released on 10.05.2017.
So, no update ever since I was told by Mario he would roll out an update. This was the 30th of April. I am considering taking action at this point. If the tool was 5$ I wouldn't but at 60$ full price for the GUMROAD version this is completely unacceptable. If anyone has any ideas on how to get us some updates, let me know!
I definitely got 60$ of uv packing, so I'm not that pissed off, but it's quite a bit annoying that the software is in need of a bit of updating, but it seems to have been more or less abandoned.
I think the biggest offender is that I think he messed up the algorithm a bit at some point, since the demo version generally had better results.
It's pretty much a dead project by now as it seems. I'd rather pack my own UV then wait for the dev to update/ respond about this thing.
Just a note to the dev; atleast roll back the Gumroad version to the same version as the Steam demo version earlier this year. The algorithm is much better then what we have now on Gumroad. But then again, it's more then half a year without the dev login back here, so I doubt we'll get that version.
its a shame... maybe he quit working on because other software like maya got a uv packer that works faster/better?
I don't think so. Not everyone uses Maya and almost every other package doesn't really have a great uv packer.
There's definitely a market for iPackThat. I wouldn't mind if he abandoned the project, but he left it in a weird state where it doesn't produce as good results as it should.
its a shame... maybe he quit working on because other software like maya got a uv packer that works faster/better?
I don't think so. Not everyone uses Maya and almost every other package doesn't really have a great uv packer.
There's definitely a market for iPackThat. I wouldn't mind if he abandoned the project, but he left it in a weird state where it doesn't produce as good results as it should.
ok you are right. i think what most guys are upset about is that they paid 60$ and thought that this software will be patched...
Ppl, Mario confirmed in email that the development IS NOT forbidden and he will keep working on it soon. Atm he's very busy on the main project his studio is working on.
Well, it would be nice if we could get an official update sometime soon.
Or, post here himself.... would at least show he cares about his customer base, as limited as it would be. I don't use the tool anymore, I'm getting better / faster results in maya as said above.
Well, it would be nice if we could get an official update sometime soon.
Or, post here himself.... would at least show he cares about his customer base, as limited as it would be. I don't use the tool anymore, I'm getting better / faster results in maya as said above.
Agree. Hope he will take care of ipt users, because without intensive support even the best software is useless.
To be honest when I talked to Mario I believed that he would release the patch soon, he said so himself. He also stated that he was very busy at Piranha Bytes. If he is in fact busy he should have released a statement where he states that development time might take longer than expected.
The thing I suggested to him is that he would revert the changes he made and makes the UV packer work like in the steam-demo. Currently the GUMROAD packing algorithm is beyond shit. I do not really care to much about the 60$ but more about the fact that there is a proper working version out there which packs like a charm....... but I am on some weird version and would not like to spend another 60$ to get a working version on steam.
Yeah, he definitely stopped developing it in a weird transitional phase where it wasn't working quite right. If it was a little better, it would have been easier to swallow the lack of updates.
Reading this thread from beginning to end was like a roller coaster ride. I kept hoping there'd be a post about the patch but i guess that ain't happening
Recently I've been playing around with IPT abit more and to my surprise I get a good result. The only thing I missed out previously (I guess...cus it was long time ago) was the Step Size setting.
For a decent result generally you want to set it as close, if not lower, then your Margin. This doesn't explain quite well in the tool tips as what does it do, but my guess is that if you have a step size more then the margin, it'll skip the placement of each uv shell too early to place it on a optimized packing position (imagine for example UV shell A is 4 unit away from UV shell B, if you set the margin to be 2 but step size to be 5, before it get close enough (2 step closer at a time), it'll skip and place it somewhere else instead).
But then again if we have a news of whether this is still in development of already abandoned, is very much appreciated.
[PB]Snoelk what is the ETA on the scale aware feature. I purchased the software a couple years back, and just tried it out again tonight. I find ipack that works great when you have 1million tiny UV shells, but when you give it a good production quality layout it can't do better than 70% usage because it doesn't have a lot of small shells to fill the wasted space. Here are my results, unfortunately still not good enough for me to use for professional work.
Maya's packer is pretty much the same as ipackthat at this point, but much slower. I believe Maya's packer is now powered by Unfold3D. So with my tests you can get 70% with ipackthat or Maya, but getting the last 15% I still have to do it by hand from start to finish. I would be interested to try this software again if/when scale up shells to fill wasted space comes online.
as this seems pretty much dead - you might want give this a try: https://www.unfold3d.com/ ? looks pretty interesseting, just dind't have time to dive in more - spent only like 30mins or so.
Maya's packer is pretty much the same as ipackthat at this point, but much slower. I believe Maya's packer is now powered by Unfold3D. So with my tests you can get 70% with ipackthat or Maya, but getting the last 15% I still have to do it by hand from start to finish. I would be interested to try this software again if/when scale up shells to fill wasted space comes online.
That's fine. That's what I want. I don't have enough time to manually pack everything. Of course I'm going to do the super critical stuff by hand, but having everything else be a good percentage of the way there almost automatically, would be great. iPackThat is what I want, and I use it a lot, but sometimes it just refuses to pack properly. It needs a little more development time.
I'm looking into unfold3d. It seems good, but maybe a little overkill (I just want packing).
the unfold3D packing code is the one in maya... but the old one... the new hot stuff like "grouping" is for unfold 10 only... Rizom Lab does not have a bussiness realtionship with Polygonal Design anymore wich are providing the maya plugin...
Replies
hi,
I'm using Ipackthat too, i didn't notice differences or it being worse than demo (but i'm using *steam* full version)
But i notice in your screenshot, it starts (original state) differently , not sure if it matters, but the original used with demo is already packed inside holes, while start condition for full vers. is a much worse packing ... won't that affect result ? starting from a better pack?
Too bad about lack of dev's response anyway, this app has been useful for me, with Blender and its good unwrapping but terrible packing, i came here to keep updated and i'd like to count on this tool (and looking into improving my exports to it .. like ways to keep small gaps on hard edges while repacking, without getting tiny pieces everywhere)
I got it from Steam just because of Gumroad issues with paypal, but otherwise i'd have got it there for simpler/reliable license system.
If you want me to try a decent pack in maya with that model just send me a link and i give it a shot. Than i could tell you what thbest settings were.
Pack done and texturing done on the model anyways
Which is a pity, because I still use it a lot. It's either this or pack by hand. I don't use maya, (and I can't justify getting it just to use the packing), so I don't really have any other option.
Which is a major bummer, since iPackthat is *almost* there. Too bad Snoelk seems to be busy with other things
Version 1.7.6339.22524 - 10.05.2017
• fixing batch xml handling
• fixed shaders ( now included inside source )
• fixed various crashes
afterwards you can use "modify -> snap and stack"
does anyone know if the gumroad version has been updated meanwhile?
is it the same as the steam version?
cheers christian
the Gumroad version can be updated to 1.7.5962.29094 the exe is from 30.04.2016.
Somehow there so far never was access to the beta versions, would be nice thou if Gumroad users where able to use the version which was released on 10.05.2017.
I think the biggest offender is that I think he messed up the algorithm a bit at some point, since the demo version generally had better results.
Just a note to the dev; atleast roll back the Gumroad version to the same version as the Steam demo version earlier this year. The algorithm is much better then what we have now on Gumroad.
But then again, it's more then half a year without the dev login back here, so I doubt we'll get that version.
maybe he quit working on because other software like maya got a uv packer that works faster/better?
There's definitely a market for iPackThat. I wouldn't mind if he abandoned the project, but he left it in a weird state where it doesn't produce as good results as it should.
i think what most guys are upset about is that they paid 60$ and thought that this software will be patched...
Or, post here himself.... would at least show he cares about his customer base, as limited as it would be.
I don't use the tool anymore, I'm getting better / faster results in maya as said above.
The thing I suggested to him is that he would revert the changes he made and makes the UV packer work like in the steam-demo. Currently the GUMROAD packing algorithm is beyond shit. I do not really care to much about the 60$ but more about the fact that there is a proper working version out there which packs like a charm....... but I am on some weird version and would not like to spend another 60$ to get a working version on steam.
I still have to re-pack it manually to get a good result, so I kinda gave up on it
For a decent result generally you want to set it as close, if not lower, then your Margin. This doesn't explain quite well in the tool tips as what does it do, but my guess is that if you have a step size more then the margin, it'll skip the placement of each uv shell too early to place it on a optimized packing position (imagine for example UV shell A is 4 unit away from UV shell B, if you set the margin to be 2 but step size to be 5, before it get close enough (2 step closer at a time), it'll skip and place it somewhere else instead).
But then again if we have a news of whether this is still in development of already abandoned, is very much appreciated.
Here are my results, unfortunately still not good enough for me to use for professional work.
I hear the Maya packer is pretty good these days, but I use modo and modo's packer is... okay, but not great.
https://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/112934
Folks still swear by Headus' UVLayout:
https://www.uvlayout.com/
I'm looking into unfold3d. It seems good, but maybe a little overkill (I just want packing).
the new hot stuff like "grouping" is for unfold 10 only...
Rizom Lab does not have a bussiness realtionship with Polygonal Design anymore wich are providing the maya plugin...
you can read the full storry on unfold3d.com