Overlapping UVs poll

polycounter lvl 4
Offline / Send Message
PetrMaxa polycounter lvl 4
I was having an argument with my co-worker other day about overlapping UVs. We both work in game industry.
We talked about AAA fps and his opition is that overlapping UVs on props are still relevant.  (He also likes to not have same texel desity in UVs :anguished: )
I am trying to prove him he is wrong :D
Do you still use overlapping UVs on your models or not?


Replies

  • CrackRockSteady
    Offline / Send Message
    CrackRockSteady Polycount Sponsor
    it depends on the model and how it is being used but yes, overlapping UVs are still relevant.

    If you're giving unique UV space to every single part of every single model you're probably being wasteful with your UV space.
  • Anchang-Style
    Offline / Send Message
    Anchang-Style polycounter lvl 7
    You wanna uniquely wrap buildings? Looking at god of war, they had fantastic results with using pretty low res geo, putting tiling textures and then put a damage normal decal on the edges. Looks very good and keeps the res up. 
  • SnowInChina
    Offline / Send Message
    SnowInChina polycounter lvl 10
    you're basically denying the existence of trim sheets in games Oo
  • defragger
    Offline / Send Message
    defragger polycounter
    You can use any trick if you understand its benefits and drawbacks.
  • RyRyB
    Offline / Send Message
    RyRyB polycounter lvl 15
    Overlapping is still relevant as is min/max’ing UV shell density.

    On weapons I would beg, borrow, and steal whatever I could to maximize density on shells close to the player’s view. 
  • musashidan
    Offline / Send Message
    musashidan insane polycounter
    To NOT use overlapping uvs on geometry of the same mesh that you will never see simultaneously is just nonsensical and a complete waste of valuable texture space, and even if you can in the case of small details like nurnies you bet I'll be stacking them.

    Think of the example of an FPS weapon. The very nature of the positioning on-screen means that the opposite side will never be seen anywhere near as often or prevalent(maybe during an animation) as the primary side that you're looking at all the time. Why would you give half of your precious texture space to something that will NEVER be noticed. And this applies to practically all objects in the real-world that it is physically impossible for us to look at from both side at the same time.
  • Joopson
    Offline / Send Message
    Joopson Polycount Sponsor
    nurnies 

     What, pray tell, are nurnies?

    [edit: Oh! They're the same as greebles. I should have known.]
  • musashidan
    Offline / Send Message
    musashidan insane polycounter
    Joopson said:
    nurnies 

     What, pray tell, are nurnies?

    [edit: Oh! They're the same as greebles. I should have known.]
    Ask the bloke on the right............... :D


  • EarthQuake
    To NOT use overlapping uvs on geometry of the same mesh that you will never see simultaneously is just nonsensical and a complete waste of valuable texture space, and even if you can in the case of small details like nurnies you bet I'll be stacking them.

    Think of the example of an FPS weapon. The very nature of the positioning on-screen means that the opposite side will never be seen anywhere near as often or prevalent(maybe during an animation) as the primary side that you're looking at all the time. Why would you give half of your precious texture space to something that will NEVER be noticed. And this applies to practically all objects in the real-world that it is physically impossible for us to look at from both side at the same time.
    RE:FPV this is one of those things that makes sense conceptually but is applicable less often in reality. There's a number of disclaimers here:

    1. If the weapon model will ever be seen in third person view, mirroring is often not appropriate, as mirroring artifacts (flipped text and such) will be visible from certain angles. You can make completely separate assets, but this is generally a waste of time.
    2. Weapons need to be seen from the side and top, so mirroring down the center line is often a bad idea. Anything camera facing should not be split on the center line either.
    3. Weapon designs are often asymmetrical and both sides can sometimes be seen in animations

    Really, something like a FPS weapon is a good example of an asset that generally should be mapped unique, or at least mostly unique (areas behind the camera without specific handedness detail like butt stocks can sometimes get away with it). For something like a FPV weapon, you should be able to devote enough texture memory to it so that it looks nicely detailed, and doesn't have mirroring artifacts like it's 1999. You'll only ever have the one asset on screen, so memory can be managed in a sensible way (page textures in/out of vram when switching guns).

    Though a FPV weapon asset is a good example of when non-uniform texel density can be very helpful. Generally areas further away from the camera or behind the camera should have less density, while focal points or anything like iron sights that the player can zoom in on should have more texel density.
  • Laughing_Bun
    Offline / Send Message
    Laughing_Bun polycounter lvl 12
    One other important note that I'm not sure was stated is making 1 really high quality trim sheet is much easier and faster than replicating all that high quality detail over a unique uv set. Less high quality stuff > lots of mediocre stuff
  • musashidan
    Offline / Send Message
    musashidan insane polycounter

    1. If the weapon model will ever be seen in third person view, mirroring is often not appropriate, as mirroring artifacts (flipped text and such) will be visible from certain angles. You can make completely separate assets, but this is generally a waste of time.
    2. Weapons need to be seen from the side and top, so mirroring down the center line is often a bad idea. Anything camera facing should not be split on the center line either.
    3. Weapon designs are often asymmetrical and both sides can sometimes be seen in animations

    Really, something like a FPS weapon is a good example of an asset that generally should be mapped unique, or at least mostly unique (areas behind the camera without specific handedness detail like butt stocks can sometimes get away with it). For something like a FPV weapon, you should be able to devote enough texture memory to it so that it looks nicely detailed, and doesn't have mirroring artifacts like it's 1999. You'll only ever have the one asset on screen, so memory can be managed in a sensible way (page textures in/out of vram when switching guns).


    OP specifically talked about FPS. As for flipped text, asymmetrical models, and centreline symmetry, these are obvious exceptions. I would never have centreline symmetry on an FPS weapon, but I would stack symmetrical islands from the sides that will never be seen(or even noticed during animation) together.

    So these caveats are pretty much a given. This stuff is all based on common sense: what will be seen/noticed? What is important/prominent? What can I get away with without compromising results? This is all obviously going to be determined by what the player can see(TPV Vs FPV) and how close will it be seen, will it be animated? If so, can I get away with it based on the speed/angle of the animation? etc...

Sign In or Register to comment.