Texture woes

[randysolo]

I'm trying to move to the next level...TEXTURES! Scarey! When I animate objects, the textures dont move with the objects. Is my only choice to use UV textures? If so, Iii have a new series of questions...if not...how do I get them to move when the object moves?

[nickdigital]

If you're in Modeler then yes, you'll need to use UVs to get the texture to stick to the model. The better workflow is to finish building/placing your model and then apply your textures. The other option is to build your model at the origin and then move it in Layout.

If you're in Layout do you have World Coordinates checked in the texture panel?

[randysolo]

Are you saying I shouldnt do anything with textures until Im in layout?

[randysolo]

thanks man...

[nickdigital]

Are you saying I shouldnt do anything with textures until Im in layout?

No, you can still place textures in Modeler. Just finish modeling first. If you're not using UVs, the texture placement is based on where it sits in space. So if you move your object after you placed your texture, your texture is still sitting in its old spot while your object is sitting in a new spot.

[Surrealist.]

I'm trying to move to the next level...TEXTURES! Scarey! When I animate objects, the textures dont move with the objects. Is my only choice to use UV textures? If so, Iii have a new series of questions...if not...how do I get them to move when the object moves?

It was not clear to me what you meant here and if having the texture set to world co was the problem then I guess you have it solved.

Here is something that might help clarify this issue a little bit.

In Modeler we often think of the Object as that which is in the Layer. So that each layer when you send it to Layout becomes a separate Object. And an Object file from Modeler is really several objects potentially if it is separated into layers.

And so when we take what is in one layer as one whole piece and move it around it is easy to say "I am moving the object".

However this is actually not a correct terminology when in Modeler and can lead to some confusion.

When you are in modeler you are editing the Object at the Mesh level. this is a sub level to the Object level. The object is moved by taking it as a whole in Layout and moving it or rotating it about its pivot which is by default at the origin of Modeler's XYZ space.

When you are in Modeler and you move the "Object", you are not actually moving it. You are just adjusting the mesh in relation to its default pivot which is at 0 XYZ.

When you are in modeler and you assign an image texture, it gets assigned to the co-ordinates of the object itself, not the mesh. So the texture size and position is in relation to the origin of Modler space. And if you move any of the points edges or polygons the texture will not move with them because they are locked down to the object's space. You are moving components within this space.

When you use UV maps, you are then assigning points to a UV space that are placed on a 2 dimensional grid.

The points on the grid relate back to the points on the mesh.

This still has nothing to do with the Mesh space and the Object space really. It is just an assignment of pixels in the image to the UV space of the grid. And where a point of the model lines up in the UV grid it will get the color of the image that also lines up at that point.

So if you UV map in Modeler and move the entire mesh around it appears as if they image "sticks" to the points in the mesh. It doesn't. All that is happening is you have moved the mesh all in one and have not changed the relationship of the points in the mesh to each other. If you were to move any of the points or polys alone you would see the image begin to warp because you are changing the relationship of the distance of the two points and not changing it in the map. And likewise if you move the points on the map, and not move the points in the mesh you will get image warping.

The best UV map is a map that closely mimics the distance between points in the mesh. So that there is no stretching or warping of the image when displayed on the object.

When you have a UV map applied World Coordinates has not effect. If you have any of the other mapping options WC will map the images to world space and not the object space.

Hope this makes sense.

[4dartist]

If TL ; DR then..


Texturing with images pointed at a UVmap is a good way to have the texture fall exactly how you want it. No matter where you move those polygons the map will stick to them.

Texturing with planer, spherical, cylindrical, etc, is more generic, and when you move polygons in modeler they project from the same spot so the textures will slide around on your polygons.

So just know once you are in Layout animating or rendering, textures won't slide around on you there, no matter how you did it.
:D

[dk_manning]

Somewhat related topic, I've been trying to use plg_make_uv plugin in lightwave 10 64 bit windows 7 and all I get is "this mesh can not be developed". I've tried several different objects, even basic primitives, can't get this thing to work.

Anyone have similar experience?
thanks

[randysolo]

I'm determined to make these uv's work! I've actually been battling these for years and I keep giving up, but I'm going to stay on it with your help this time! What you're all saying is good, but nothing seems to work. In LW 10 when I create a new map, I must give it an Initial value or nothing will show up. When I do, I get all the parts of my "box". To make the box square, I make several cuts along the edges so the they are not so rounded. When I apply a texture that uses the uv map i created, the image stretches because of the cuts I made. If I don't subdivide, everything is fine. But there must be a way to do it even when subdividing. Is that correct? I hope you guys don't get tired of me this week, I'm going to keep hammering until I get it! I made it through an algebra class last week with an A average, i can figure this out!! Help!
thanks,

Powersolo

[4dartist]

First off, if you plan to use UVs and sub division surfaces, don't use Catmull-Clark, use Sub patches. Subpatches actually work with UVs correctly. To choose this, there is a button called "SubD-Type" at the bottom of modeler.

Second, if you are UV mapping a sub-d object then more then likely you need to be using SubD UVs. However, sometimes you need to use special SubD uvs that keep the corners tight, but the rest rounded. You can set this in a pulldown when creating the UVs OR even after they are created by having the UV map selected at the bottom right and hit, "UV Interpolation" in the 'Map' tab. On that pull down the only option that isn't subD UVs is Linear. The rest subdivide the UVs in some fashion.

For example. If you are UV mapping a Coke can. You don't want the corners to round out or you will see a error on the can where one side of the map meets the other. So you use the Linear Corners setting.

For your box using linear corners may be the right way to go about it. If not try the others.

Lastly, a trick when UV mapping a subD object is to use Shift-g. It toggles on a snap mode. It basically welds points together in the UV map. So if you notice you have two of the same point out there just drag one onto the other and it will weld. This can fix issues in the uv map where polygons aren't subdividing correctly.

I'll post a picture in a sec.

[4dartist]

Here are a couple images that show what I am talking about.

The first images is about fixing UV maps that aren't sub dividing correctly because at some point the polygons became unconnected. Once they are unconnected they round out on their own. To reconnect them just snap them together. (shift-g then drag one onto the other)

The second shows how having rounded sub-ds even on a sub-d object can be wrong. So using a hybrid called 'Linear Corners' will fix it.

[randysolo]

THANK YOU!! That worked perfectly! Both using regular subd's and the linear corners. I'm just curious though, is there no way to make Catmullclark work? I'm happy right now where I am. I want to further into it for sure. Thanks everyone for all your information. It helps to get an overall look as well. I know I'll have more questions, but this will help me tremendously!

thanks,

Powersolo

[4dartist]

Catmull Clark sort of works, but the interpolation is incorrect for the most part. The results are not what they should be so basically useless. This may only be true for the mac though, I haven't tested Catmull Clark UV maps on the PC.

Why they didn't work from the moment it was released I will never know. Part of the frustration with lightwave, implemented features almost never fully work.

[Surrealist.]

Yeah the CC issue. Too bad because it is a much better smoothing method. It has been so long since I have used it. But I do think it is the same on the PC as Mac. There are several issues with CC's in LW, I can't remember them all. I think one of the issues has to do with displacement mapping. But I do remember coming to the conclusion that they could not be trusted for production so I stopped using them.

For modeling one should stick with quads but what I found myself doing was using CC's to model with so I could turn SDS on an off with Ngons as I edited the mesh and have all of the polys smooth to check the model progress as I went along. Then once I had the model all quads I would switch back to subpatch.