getting straight unwrap from pips/cylinders
polycounter lvl 4
In the picture, the first unwrap is what im trying to get out of the unwrap...the first on all the edges are connected together nicely so I can texture with a nice flow from one poly to another...but this unwrap was automatically generated when I hit the unwrap uvw modifier, this was the only cylinder that was unwrapped like this by max...the rest weren't as desirable.
the 2nd unwrap is the one I keep getting from using various unwrap/mapping options...no matter which unwrap option I've used, I could not produce the same unwrap as the first model...help?
im using max 2012 btw...thanks again guys
the 2nd unwrap is the one I keep getting from using various unwrap/mapping options...no matter which unwrap option I've used, I could not produce the same unwrap as the first model...help?
im using max 2012 btw...thanks again guys
Replies
Spline > Lathe > Generate Mapping Coords
Oh but that doesn't do much for you now does it... well actually you can select a vertical edge and in edit poly click create shape and then add the lathe modifier. You probably want to center the objects pivot before creating the spline and applying lathe.
some images from an older thread:
Like the middle layout above^
from: http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80947
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1286315&postcount=55
Like EQ said the distortion on pieces is going to depend on difference in the shape and the way you unwrap it depends greatly on the material that is going to be applied. I'm not sure squared off UV's in your top example is the best way to go. If you're baking from a higher poly source then the distortion will be handled to a good degree by RTT.
I hope this image explains the process. You can leave the UV's at step 2 for less distortion as Earthquake suggested.
Also, I use hotkeys to ring and loop select the UV's faster. The whole process of pelt mapping, relaxing, then straightening takes about 15 seconds.
You and I both know you can't get rid of distortion but you can minimize it to acceptable levels.
Here is an example taken from the projection painter demo which illustrates the point pretty well and works off the same principle.
On the left:
The diffuse map, with distortion. That distortion would be hard to mimic on your own. It would take a life time trying to get rid of the distortion so a non-distorted greenthooth looked as right as it does in the example on the right.
On the right:
This is how it looks applied to the model. Because the greentooth was distorted automatically it looks better than if you just applied a non distorted greentooth over the distorted UV's.
It's the same reason why people don't try to paint waves into normal maps to round out cylinders. I'm not saying this is a cure all method that works for everything but it can help work around mild to moderate distortion.
People need to pick the best method that works for them in that specific case. They get there by having a variety of methods in their arsenal.
I wrote one for myself that works just like NoltaN described.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2336353/UVFlatten.ms
Run the script one from anywhere then you can assign it to a hotkey from the Customize UI menu, category: VigTools.
THANKS ALOT!!!!! took a few mins for me to grasp what you did from the pic but im on a roll now
thanks to the other replies as well...I will have to try out some of those suggestions when Im done with my hw...
However; if you're clamping all your edges on a model like the OP's, you could end up with 1:4 pixel stretching on the thinest areas, which is bad no matter how you look at it. I mean if you think stretching your uv layout 1:4 is a good method to work with ok... but I wouldn't agree with that.
You're also ignoring technical concerns, its generally best to split your UVs and smoothing groups at 90 degree angles(even with a synced workflow there are advantages). So while you can't negate distortion completely, generally there are common sense methods we can use to limit distortion and work well with the technical aspects of art creation.
A: Virtually distortion free, will bake better/more friendly with smoothing groups(which means more compatible with various engines, compresses better, easier to generate detail map from etc), will look better if texture has any surface detail or pattern, slightly more annoying to paint on.
B: Easier to paint on, reduced vertex count, no other benefits.
Honestly, B isn't "guaranteed " to look worse, there are some extremely specific situations where you might not be able to tell the difference, but its sort of like saying "a dog pissing on your leg doesn't guarantee that you'll have a bad day".
Just pick the seam where you want the uvs to split, pelt map, relax it, then straighten edges. Usually gets you what you want pretty quick.
That's probably going to happen with it clamped in one direction also... But I agree, I'm not sure either approach would work best, probably the "wrong" example from the OP is best, but that depends on a few things that aren't said and he wasn't asking which was best, he was asking how to get UVs that where clamped in both directions.
Solutions seem to be:
- Straighten Selection, max's one button solution to grid-ify messy UV's.
- Rebuild the geometry quickly using edge selection and splines that generate mapping coords.
- UV align the loops and possibly rings? (use scripts if on older versions)
That's starting to split hairs. Generally speaking less UV seams, means less verts overall, better performance.In the case of the OP I don't think the number of verts matters that much, but if that decision gets made on many parts over the entire model or even multiple models, it can start to add up. Those are risk/rewards that need to be hammered out and adjusted, probably with in engine tests and the help of a graphics programer.
Urghhhh don't remind me, the pain of getting quality bakes with a broken tangent basis while paying attention to real vert count. agfdgfdagfd....
Anyway the rest of the shit I think we pretty much agree on but are arguing semantics.