PDA

View Full Version : OBJ and LW and UV maps...



IMI
10-31-2009, 12:23 AM
Here's to hoping that CORE will lose the need to physically tell your models to use their UV maps when exporting to OBJ.

It's been a while since I used LW to model anything and I just went through a long and tedious process of exporting many parts of a file to be used in ZBrush, then an equally long and tedious time appending the parts to the main object in ZBrush.

Seems I forgot to do something along the way, being that I forgot that LW's unique interpretation of the OBJ file doesn't *automatically* take the UV map into account, and I forgot to tell LW to use the UV maps... so now I get to do all that work all over again.

probiner
10-31-2009, 12:45 AM
IMI dont you use modo? how does it export OBJs?

And can't you import the same object with a new UV to Zbrush?

I'm preety sure if it has the same point order you can replace each object no?

Good Luck

IMI
10-31-2009, 01:06 AM
Hiya Pedro.

Yeah, I use modo 302, but I don't have it installed yet since I just got up and running again after installing the Windows 7 RTM. I honestly can't remember how Modo deals with OBJ files and UV maps, as I mostly use modo with the .lwo format, moving objects back and forth between Modo and Modeler. I actually don't remember if I've even *ever* used Modo's OBJ export for use in ZBRush, for that matter.
But being that Modo probably uses half the same code as Modeler ( ;) ), it wouldn't surprise me if they do the same.

In any event, I've redone all the work I had to do.
The problem is I imported some OBJ files that I had UV mapped in UVLayout, then split the models into parts in LW, then exported to ZBrush. It's been a while since I modeled in LW and forgot you have to physically tell it to use the UV maps before exporting as OBJ.

I'm just glad that I'm in the habit of checking my UVs in Zbrush before doing anything, otherwise I might have worked for hours in Zbrush before realizing it.

LW is the only program I'm aware of that you have to actually *tell* it to export your UVs along with an OBJ file, and IMO, that needs to be changed. It's just silly.

SplineGod
10-31-2009, 01:56 AM
I dont know of anything else that requires that this be done either.
We shouldnt have to wait on Core for a fix either. You might also try
blender since it can import .lwo files and export .obj. Blenders also got
some great UV tools.

IMI
10-31-2009, 02:33 AM
Hiya Larry,


Ah yes, the ever-enticing Blender. It's been very hard to resist, but I've fallen prey to the evil influence of Autodesk, and am now a happy XSI user.
And being that I already spent 300 bucks on UVLayout, plus another 70 to have the dongle shipped from Down Under... you know. ;)


The reason I specified CORE is because I have absolutely no hope that LW 9.7 or 9.6.1 (or whatever), will change anything about this. And really, it's never been a problem until recently now that I've been using Softimage for modeling and have gotten out of the habit of having to remember to do such things.

Sensei
10-31-2009, 03:49 AM
IMI, are you serious??? :o

That's all because of LightWave can have unlimited number of UV maps in LWO, but OBJ can have just one. If you make sphere in LW, then make 3 UVs, how OBJ Exporter can know which to use? Obvious it's checking Color channel in Surface Editor whether it has applied UV. And 2 additional UVs are lost/ignored when exporting.

It would be real disaster if Core have just one UV per object.

IMI
10-31-2009, 04:02 AM
IMI, are you serious??? :o

That's all because of LightWave can have unlimited number of UV maps in LWO, but OBJ can have just one. If you make sphere in LW, then make 3 UVs, how OBJ Exporter can know which to use? Obvious it's checking Color channel in Surface Editor whether it has applied UV. And 2 additional UVs are lost/ignored when exporting.

It would be real disaster if Core have just one UV per object.

Be that as it may, the OBJ files I was working with only had one UV map and were imported that way.
Are you saying you think it's acceptable that Modeler can import an OBJ file and then export it without including one of the most important parts of it unless you tell it to? Because I don't. It's a vertex map, and as such *should* be included as part of the file, regardless.

While I agree with what you said in regards to creating the object in LW and then exporting it, I don't think that applies to this situation, being that each object only had one UV map and there was no "decision" to be made.

probiner
10-31-2009, 04:14 AM
Aahh sensei explanation make sense.
But IMI is right.

Unless any UV is assigned in any surface the first UV of the list could be attached to all surfaces when OBJ is exported.

Say you have an object with 15 surfaces. Assigning the UV 15 times with a void image feels a bit stupid =\

cheers

Sensei
10-31-2009, 04:40 AM
I have tried following:

Made sphere, pressed T on right bottom, made spherical UV. Opened Surface Editor, pressed T on Color channel, picked up Projection UV, picked up UV from list (it has name "Texture"), used File > Export > Export OBJ. The file had "vt" lines inside. So everything is right.

Quit Modeler.

Then used File > Load Object, picked up .obj file saved above. Opened again Surface Editor- it has pushed T on Color channel, and has Projection set to UV, and UV is set, but named "sphere_uv", instead of "Texture"- that's fine, because .obj file specification doesn't have named UVs (why to give name for just one unique UV after all?)- LW importer used object name and appeneded _uv.

So, everything is working, in mine test object.

IMI
10-31-2009, 05:01 AM
Sensei, maybe you have some super LightWave then. I can't explain how yours works different from everyone elses, but where I'm sitting if I load an OBJ file that has a UV map, I have to manually tell it to *use* that UV and it won't export the UV's attached to the file *unless* it is loaded and attached to the file in the surface editor. It's always been that way, and if you search you can find a few threads where people got caught by that. I know, because I've answered why in a few threads.
For as long as I've been using LW it's been that way, from 7.0 to 9.6 and every version in between.

It could be that it's different somehow in objects made in LW, but I don't have time to test it right now, but in OBJ files imported from other programs, the UVs are there, but will not export with the OBJ file unless you tell it to. That's not debilitating, but it *is* annoying, especially when one forgets like I mentioned in my first post.

Sensei
10-31-2009, 05:08 AM
Try loading mine object..

IMI
10-31-2009, 10:40 AM
Well, your object loads into LW and does in fact have the UV map in the list, though not applied.

But if I export it out of LW *without doing anything to it* as OBJ, it will lose the UV map, and it won't even be in the list or in the vertex maps panel. It's just gone, just as I have been saying.

But I re-read what you wrote earlier:


Made sphere, pressed T on right bottom, made spherical UV. Opened Surface Editor, pressed T on Color channel, picked up Projection UV, picked up UV from list (it has name "Texture"), used File > Export > Export OBJ. The file had "vt" lines inside. So everything is right.


See there? What you did was *applied* the UV map to it, which is what I've been saying all along. You told modeler to use that UV map. If you do that, all is well and it will be exported along with the OBJ. But if you don't, it's gone.

That's what happened to me above. I forgot to "tell" LW to send the UVs along with the objects to import to ZBrush, and when they imported into ZBrush, they had no UVs. It's all very predictable.

Try this instead:
* Create a simple primitive and give it a new UV map.
* Verify in the vertex maps panel that there *is* a UV map in there.
* DO NOT do anything in the surface editor. Do not assign the UVs, do not change anything.
* Export it as OBJ and close Modeler.
* Reopen Modeler and load that OBJ file. There will be no UV map in the vertex maps panel or anywhere else. It's gone, poof, vanished.

No other 3D app that deals with OBJ has this unique... feature... as a default action. They all retain that UV map within the OBJ file, which is as it should be.

Sensei
10-31-2009, 10:53 AM
Well, your object loads into LW and does in fact have the UV map in the list, though not applied.

I have it applied to Color channel texture! I have several times used Export OBJ, Load Object, then Export OBJ (different name) and again Load Object.. And UV and surface settings were preserved.
LightWave v9.6 build 1539 32 bit, with redirected config files (and none older LW installed before installing it)

Sensei
10-31-2009, 11:02 AM
Try this instead:
* Create a simple primitive and give it a new UV map.
* Verify in the vertex maps panel that there *is* a UV map in there.
* DO NOT do anything in the surface editor. Do not assign the UVs, do not change anything.
* Export it as OBJ and close Modeler.
* Reopen Modeler and load that OBJ file. There will be no UV map in the vertex maps panel or anywhere else. It's gone, poof, vanished.

I know that this way, UVs will be gone. It's like with surfaces- if there is no polygon using surface- it's not saved to file and gone.

But that have sense- why to save something that is not used anywhere..



No other 3D app that deals with OBJ has this unique... feature... as a default action. They all retain that UV map within the OBJ file, which is as it should be.

You should answer yourself whether these 3d application have just one unique UV per object, or unlimited number of UVs..

IMI
10-31-2009, 11:03 AM
Did you try the steps I just outlined?
If you're applying it to the color channel every time before exporting, yes, it will always load back up with the UV maps. That's not the problem. The problem is what happens when one forgets to load it into the color channel before exporting.

Spline God knew what I was talking about, probiner knew what I was talking about. So apparently this isn't the first time this has been brought up. If your LightWave displays different behavior, I don't know what to say, but I'm using the same version, same build. And mine is a fresh install too, being that I just installed Windows 7 and everything else in that past few days.

What are your OBJ options set at?
I have OBJ One Layer, OBJ One VMap, OBJ Pivot At Center., OBJ Merge Points, and OBJ ZBrush Mode all checked ON.

Sensei
10-31-2009, 11:08 AM
Did you try the steps I just outlined?
If you're applying it to the color channel every time before exporting, yes, it will always load back up with the UV maps. That's not the problem. The problem is what happens when one forgets to load it into the color channel before exporting.

No, I do not make any changes in Surface Editor- as I said- tried Export OBJ, restart Modeler, Load Object, watch in Surface Editor that everything is right, then Export OBJ, and did it 3-4 times, always using different file name..

Everything with attached by me file, of course.



What are your OBJ options set at?
I have OBJ One Layer, OBJ One VMap, OBJ Pivot At Center., OBJ Merge Points, and OBJ ZBrush Mode all checked ON.

??? What options? I am using File > Export > Export OBJ.. There is none options window, just file requester asking for path..

IMI
10-31-2009, 11:10 AM
I know that this way, UVs will be gone. It's like with surfaces- if there is no polygon using surface- it's not saved to file and gone.



You should answer yourself whether these 3d application have just one unique UV per object, or unlimited number of UVs..


See? That's what I meant. Now you see.
And I'm not concerned about more than one UV map if I'm using ZBrush.
And if you load an OBJ file that HAS a UV map on it, from another program such as UVLayout, why can't it look at it and say. "Hmmm... one UV map, nothing fancy, nothing extra, let's just let him keep it and not cause trouble here."?

You see it as a feature, I see it as an annoyance. You can defend it however you wish, but I think it was simply programmed wrong and nobody ever worried about it.

Since we're talking about OBJ here, the fact hat LW can have 2 or 2,000 UV maps on an object makes no difference, as OBJ can have only *one*, so LW should treat it as an OBJ file and just export the damn UV map along with it.
Let it worry about multiple UV maps when the .lwo format is being used. Speaking of which, it always exports all UV maps in lwo format, even if none of them are applied.
So why should it be different for OBJ, when only ONE UV map is present on import?

IMI
10-31-2009, 11:11 AM
??? What options? I am using File > Export > Export OBJ.. There is none options window, just file requester asking for path..


The options in the general Options panel. Letter o is the default keyboard shortcut.

Sensei
10-31-2009, 11:15 AM
The options in the general Options panel. Letter o is the default keyboard shortcut.

Ahh, these. I am using default settings. Never touched this in my life anyway.

So, turned on are OBJ One Layer, OBJ One VMap, OBJ Write Normals, OBJ Merge Points, turned off are OBJ Pivot at Center and OBJ ZBrush Mode.

IMI
10-31-2009, 11:18 AM
Ahh, these. I am using default settings. Never touched this in my life anyway.

So, turned on are OBJ One Layer, OBJ One VMap, OBJ Write Normals, OBJ Merge Points, turned off are OBJ Pivot at Center and OBJ ZBrush Mode.


I'll try it out with those settings later., though I doubt it will make a difference. No time for this anymore now though.

Sensei
10-31-2009, 11:19 AM
Hehe.. As soon as I turned on OBJ ZBrush Mode, it started loosing Surface Editor settings while Load Object.. Basically T button on Color channel is off..

IMI
10-31-2009, 11:28 AM
Hehe.. As soon as I turned on OBJ ZBrush Mode, it started loosing Surface Editor settings while Load Object.. Basically T button on Color channel is off..


Well there we go then. :)
I really don't know what that mysterious "ZBrush Mode" is all about. That first appeared around LW 9.5, and I think it was a change to fix something they broke.

By the way, the more I think about it I don't see any advantage to being able to have multiple UV maps in a .lwo object. What is the benefit of that anyway? I can see it if we were confined to using only 0-1 UV space for LightWave objects, but we're not, and can have our UVs in as many regions as we want.

Sensei
10-31-2009, 11:45 AM
Well there we go then. :)
I really don't know what that mysterious "ZBrush Mode" is all about. That first appeared around LW 9.5, and I think it was a change to fix something they broke.

I don't know too for what is this OBJ ZBrush Mode..



By the way, the more I think about it I don't see any advantage to being able to have multiple UV maps in a .lwo object. What is the benefit of that anyway? I can see it if we were confined to using only 0-1 UV space for LightWave objects, but we're not, and can have our UVs in as many regions as we want.

Are you kidding?

You can have f.e. one texture layer or node with UV attached to Color channel, and second texture layer or node attached to Transparency channel with completely different UV (detailed some area, fully covering image resolution in 0...1 range- closer look f.e. face). Or UV map ready to surface baking camera.. Or atlas mapped, or any other way mapped.. Without having to loose original one UV in same file..

With one UV for entire object/layer, one point can have just one UV pair!

OBJ one UV map is good for games, where you need simplicity for OpenGL/DirectX. But 3d app render engines don't need it (would not gain any speed up requiring just one UV).

IMI
10-31-2009, 12:03 PM
Are you kidding?

You can have f.e. one texture layer or node with UV attached to Color channel, and second texture layer or node attached to Transparency channel with completely different UV (detailed some area, fully covering image resolution in 0...1 range- closer look f.e. face). Or UV map ready to surface baking camera.. Or atlas mapped, or any other way mapped.. Without having to loose original one UV in same file..


No, I'm not kidding.
What is the purpose of a UV map anyway? For pinning down textures, right? For having something to paint textures on. Or to bake procedural textures and/or GI/lighting into.
So what benefit is it if your object has a texture map with one set of UVs, but a trans map with a separate set of UVs, and a spec map using a third? Wouldn't that create more problems than it would solve as you try to match it all up? Anything you can do with multiple UVs you can do with one set of matching UVs for an entire object.
The only benefit I can see is with multiple UVs you could animate between radically different mapping, to get unique effects - if LW can even do that, but that would be it.
Even so, you could still animate all your texture channels to get the same effect, without needing more than one set of UVs.

But then again, LW sees "one object" as what may actually be many objects. That is, a room full of furniture can be saved out from LW as *one* object, either in one layer, or many. So in that case it would make sense for your Complete Room object to have many different UVs - one set for your couch, one for the table, one for the walls, and so on.

I'm talking about, say, a human figure or an animal of some sort where it would simply be more efficient and less problematic and less unnecessarily complicated to have one UV map for the whole thing.

Sensei
10-31-2009, 12:30 PM
No, I'm not kidding.
What is the purpose of a UV map anyway? For pinning down textures, right? For having something to paint textures on.

You have very limited thinking. Probably because of making just 3d objects for games? And for every project you're using same way: model object, uv map, paint texture..

But it can be reversed! F.e. client send you texture or took photo, you have to make object and uv for ready image.. It's easier to move couple points in UV space, than transforming photo/texture.

You would easily end up with tons and tons of overlapping polygons in UV space, especially in archviz object where you want to keep in one layer entire house. Plants needs green texture/photo, preferably using entire space of image, painting on wall, also entire image, walls, room things, etc. etc. maybe hundred thousands polygons in the same UV space, 0-1.. Making completely mess, and not usable editing UV map.. Not everyone want to split scene items to layers, just to be able to edit UV..


Or to bake procedural textures and/or GI/lighting into.
So what benefit is it if your object has a texture map with one set of UVs, but a trans map with a separate set of UVs, and a spec map using a third? Wouldn't that create more problems than it would solve as you try to match it all up? Anything you can do with multiple UVs you can do with one set of matching UVs for an entire object.

It's up to user whether he/she wants to use multiple UVs, not 3d application requirement. One is making game object, so will keep just one UV map, somebody else needs details in some area, so he/she is using another UV map for that area.. f.e. eyes and use f.e. Color Mixer node to blend between area of low detail and high detail. Alternative is stupid wasting texture image space not effectively, or making overlapping UV polygons and other problems..

Good 3D application must be universal, with as less as possible built-in limits.

IMI
10-31-2009, 01:29 PM
You would easily end up with tons and tons of overlapping polygons in UV space, especially in archviz object where you want to keep in one layer entire house. Plants needs green texture/photo, preferably using entire space of image, painting on wall, also entire image, walls, room things, etc. etc. maybe hundred thousands polygons in the same UV space, 0-1.. Making completely mess, and not usable editing UV map.. Not everyone want to split scene items to layers, just to be able to edit UV..


Well that's what I just acknowledged above there, Sensei, with my "Complete Room" as one .lwo object example.



...somebody else needs details in some area, so he/she is using another UV map for that area.. f.e. eyes and use f.e. Color Mixer node to blend between area of low detail and high detail. Alternative is stupid wasting texture image space not effectively, or making overlapping UV polygons and other problems..


And that's why I mentioned a few posts ago that multiple UV maps would be useful if we were limited to only 0-1, but we're not. You can UV all over the place, and give every polygon a full texture square if you wanted to. Or more practically, the Head an entire square in one region, the body in another, and so on, nothing overlapping and nothing confined to a tiny space. It would serve exactly the same purpose as multiple maps, but would be simpler.

IMI
10-31-2009, 01:34 PM
Oh and yes, my thinking on this *is* with game modeling in mind. ;)

If I wanted anything more complicated or if I weren't using painted texture maps I wouldn't even worry about UVs and just texture with procedurals or use the other non-UV placement in the texture editor.

Ethangar
10-31-2009, 03:03 PM
Sorry.. I didn't see where you posted your pipeline flow so this could be redundant. But if its destined for XSI again I normally do this.

XSI export as an .obj
UVs in UVLayout. ( you gotta love that app )
Modeler to break it up the way that I want.
Save as a .lwo
Load the .lwo back into XSI. All your UV's intact even multiple uv's if you set them up in modeler.

hrgiger
10-31-2009, 03:51 PM
And being that I already spent 300 bucks on UVLayout, plus another 70 to have the dongle shipped from Down Under... you know. ;)



You spent $70 to have the dongle shipped to you on top of the $300? As you know, I also have UVlayout (the Pro single verision like yours) and I never had to pay any $70 for that.

Oh, and what do you think about UV tools in XSI? I didn't care for them much myself.

IMI
10-31-2009, 04:23 PM
You spent $70 to have the dongle shipped to you on top of the $300? As you know, I also have UVlayout (the Pro single verision like yours) and I never had to pay any $70 for that.

Oh, and what do you think about UV tools in XSI? I didn't care for them much myself.

Yeah, it was $370.00 total. The dongle was part of the 300, but the shipping was an extra 70. FedEx, that is.

I kind of looked over XSI's UV tools, but who needs em with UVL, you know? For simple texture placement it's cool, like a floor or a wall, but I wouldn't want to unwrap something complex with XSI's tools.

IMI
10-31-2009, 04:25 PM
Sorry.. I didn't see where you posted your pipeline flow so this could be redundant. But if its destined for XSI again I normally do this.

XSI export as an .obj
UVs in UVLayout. ( you gotta love that app )
Modeler to break it up the way that I want.
Save as a .lwo
Load the .lwo back into XSI. All your UV's intact even multiple uv's if you set them up in modeler.

That was pretty much the same thing I was doing, only I was sending the OBJs to ZBrush for some texture and normal painting. The problem is I didn't check the UVs in ZB until I had all the parts imported and appended. So I had to redo the whole process.

hrgiger
10-31-2009, 05:05 PM
Yeah, it was $370.00 total. The dongle was part of the 300, but the shipping was an extra 70. FedEx, that is.



Man, I didn't get hit with that shipping.

IMI
11-02-2009, 04:48 AM
i put in a feature request for auto exporting of uv's on obj's if only one uv map elsewhere too. I think the dev's may look into it


Cool and thanks - I hope they do. :)
Like I said earlier, it's nothing debilitating, just annoying if you forget about manually assigning the UVs and go through a long process like I did, getting everything into ZBrush and realizing it after the fact.
Of course it *could* be debilitating, if you forgot to do that AND over-wrote the OBJ file. That would be disastrous if you didn't have a backup.

Lamont
11-02-2009, 07:45 AM
Also, I'd like to add that yeah, I import an OBJ and my UV's are linked and the texture is there. I export that same mesh and UV's are there and it exports the texture too :P.

It would be nice to have it auto assign, but hey... In Maya I have to make sure that my ACTIVE UV map is the one that I want exported. If you have no UV maps ACTIVE in LW, then it won't export it. You just created a VMap.. you didn't USE IT. Sounds simple to me. It's never been an issue, and I've been doing this for years. Even when I have multiple UV maps on a mesh in LW, I need to export something for AO, normal map or whatever, I still have to make sure that UV map I want to use is ACTIVE.

Should this make the change and end up in some point release, then whoo-hoo. And I do remember the busted OBJ export we've had for years... no *.mat file!?!?!?

I can't believe you guys are buying UV mapping applications when LW has an AWESOME free one and works FASTER than HeadusUV. Using that sphere below doing the same operations in each application. Headus required you to compute it to get the results. PLG was instant, and optimizes, packs and relaxes faster.

Good luck!!

probiner
11-02-2009, 08:11 AM
UVLayout uses SubD deformation to calculate UV, you can make a lot of setups before relaxing (straitning, pin, partial hole sealing), you can see where the mesh is being stressed, you can simetrize the UV info, wich is a great time saver...

Well but for most simple situations you might not need this and PLG goes just fine, and all the export OBJ and copying Uvs back can kill time.

Cheers

IMI
11-02-2009, 08:17 AM
I can't believe you guys are buying UV mapping applications when LW has an AWESOME free one and works FASTER than HeadusUV. Using that sphere below doing the same operations in each application. Headus required you to compute it to get the results. PLG was instant, and optimizes, packs and relaxes faster.

Good luck!!

If I were unwrapping balls and boxes I wouldn't have bought UVLayout. For unwrapping complex meshes, nothing beats it, IMO. I've used modo for UVs too.
I used the PLG tools in LW since they were first released. They are very good, but UVlayout has far more tools, and new features are being added all the time.

Lamont
11-02-2009, 09:32 AM
The only thing that makes HeadusUV rock is shell stacking.

Let me know when you find that ubber object that PLG can't UV map, I'll totally do it for you for free.

Lamont
11-02-2009, 10:19 AM
I think Lightwolf has a modified obj export script BTW.

probiner
11-02-2009, 11:05 AM
Lamont try this one :P
Say i have this stationary to stand next to a wall an i have a image to put on it but the mapping should be like a cilinder to work.

=P

IMI
11-02-2009, 01:24 PM
The only thing that makes HeadusUV rock is shell stacking.

Let me know when you find that ubber object that PLG can't UV map, I'll totally do it for you for free.


I'm really not into the idea of getting into an argument with you about it, and I really have to question your motives for coming into this thread just to try to convince me PLG is adequate for my needs.
I'm pretty sure I know what I like and I'm pretty sure I know what I want to use. I guess you missed the part where I said I've used PLG since it first came out. Used it almost exclusively for a couple of years, actually.
Did I get UVLayout because I couldn't "get" PLG or couldn't work with it? No, I got it because it has far more tools. Far more, not just shell stacking. I'm using the latest version. 2.06.00 Final. Which UVLayout version are you using, Lamont?

And no, I don't need you to unwrap anything for me, free or otherwise. I have that all figured out, thank you very much.

Lamont
11-02-2009, 04:29 PM
I'm really not into the idea of getting into an argument with you about it, and I really have to question your motives for coming into this thread just to try to convince me PLG is adequate for my needs.I'm selling lic of PLG. Wanna buy? No, I tacked that on AFTER I read the last post above mine since you know - People were talking about spending money on UV apps and results. IN MY POST I left my comments about how and why LW bugs up the UV export with a very simple explanation. Sucks you got bent out of shape.


Which UVLayout version are you using, Lamont?I rock the hobby lic. for the shell stacking pretty much :D.

@ probiner - Please don't tell me that was mapped in Headus, it's got overlapping UV's. :P.

probiner
11-02-2009, 04:36 PM
@ probiner - Please don't tell me that was mapped in Headus, it's got overlapping UV's. :P.

That was PLG. Make it work =) Cylindrical plz. watchout for that Subdivision distortion. I hope your hour isn't expensive :D

Cheers

IMI
11-02-2009, 04:43 PM
I got "bent out of shape" because you said


Let me know when you find that ubber object that PLG can't UV map, I'll totally do it for you for free.


As if I implied I couldn't use PLG or was even asking about what to use for UV mapping?
And then to go on and imply I would need your help because...why? Because I couldn't figure out how to use PLG or something?

So if you're surprised that I "got bent out of shape", I'm surprised you couldn't figure out how that might have happened.

I never said PLG was bad or inadequate. In fact, I've recommended it to many many people and have answered questions on how to use it and shown some examples too. And I've recommended UVLayout for people who wanted something really good and didn't mine shelling out some scratch for it.
I've used PLG to unwrap many rather complex models over the past couple of years and it never let me down. But UVLayout *Pro* simply has far more tools, far more options, and isn't confined to working within Modeler, which has its own limitations, especially when dealing with very high res meshes.
UVLayout also has interchange plugins for other apps, such as Maya and Softimage and I think Max too.

Lamont
11-02-2009, 05:42 PM
That was PLG. Make it work =) Cylindrical plz. watchout for that Subdivision distortion. I hope your hour isn't expensive :D

CheersPfft, everyone knows LW blows with that. Thanks for tacking it on AFTER the fact :D. But I know of the tricks to get it done and re-did the mesh in like 2 minutes :D. What sub-D level would you have like it at? :D.


As if I implied I couldn't use PLG or was even asking about what to use for UV mapping?
And then to go on and imply I would need your help because...why? Because I couldn't figure out how to use PLG or something?Nope.

probiner
11-03-2009, 11:38 PM
By the way, can't you stack UV's in LW, Lamont? Stacking is for symmetrical parts right? If thats the case, its seems fairly easy to do it LW.

You can either Mirror after Packing or use Nitisara Paste UVs on Symmetrical.

Cageman
11-04-2009, 12:28 AM
Funny thread! :)

I agree with the gripes about UVs not exporting if not attached to a surface, BUT, it does make sense (someone mentioned the behaviour LW has with Surfaces not assigned to any polygon). So, in a sense, it does behave accordingly to how LightWave is structured.

Could it be better? Sure...

Does it really matter? No, not really

Should NT spend time fixing it? No, I don't think so. Once you know how it behaves, it works, trying to fix it may make it worse. :D

Unwrapping:
I have one co-worker that is always using UVLayout for unwrapping and another one that always use PLG. The rest if the bunch use Modo. 99% of the time, no-one have any issues.

Despite all the goodness with whatever app is used, there are situations when crashes and other weird behaviours forces someone to try something else. We once had a situation where Modo was constantly crashing when doing the unwrapping of a specific object and the PLG-dude (my co-worker that is) had to step in and unwrap using PLG, without any crashes. It was just one of those really rare times when software missbehaves without any traces of what caused the crashes, and that is where additional tools come into play. Next time, it might be PLG and Modo that missbehaves, and the co-worker with UVLayout in his hands will be the one that comes to rescue.

If money is to be spent on a unwrapping tool, UVLayout seems to be one of the best out there. I've watched my co-worker using it and it's kind of fun watching it being used. I think it is a great complement to the tools avaliable for LW. Hopefully, CORE will not need any PLG or other plugins to do propper UV-unwrapping, but a stand alone application like UVLayout is money well spent if unwrapping is crucial to the work you are doing.

:)

Lamont
11-04-2009, 12:46 AM
By the way, can't you stack UV's in LW, Lamont? Stacking is for symmetrical parts right? If thats the case, its seems fairly easy to do it LW.

You can either Mirror after Packing or use Nitisara Paste UVs on Symmetrical.Stacking is like for similar parts/shells (symmetrical or not), say you have eyes you want to UV map onto one spot of UV space and not have to paint out two eye spots on the sheet. You can stack in LW, but it's by hand, I just turn on snapping and move entire shells. But 99% of the time, the company does not have LW, or LW is rendering on another comp so the dongle is there, so I just use HeadusUV since it's scales to average/1st or whatever and tries to match. I use HeadusUV when there's like a TON of stacking I have to do and doing it in Maya or LW is out of the question (lazy).

IMI
11-04-2009, 02:19 AM
Very well put there Cageman. Of course, I've come to expect that from you. :D
Although I disagree that LW's default behavior with the OBJ format is the way it should be.
I mean, if you make an object and UV map it in Max, Maya, or Softimage (and probably 99% of the other programs out there) and UV map it in your program, then export an OBJ file, the UV map goes along for the ride. No worries, it's there. And the same goes if you import an OBJ file that already has UVs, do some adjustments to the model, like make materials or drag some points around or whatever, then export, the UV stays with the OBJ file when you export, without you having to go to any additional steps to make sure it "sticks".
I may be wrong about this, but I believe part of the OBJ file format specs are to include *all* vertex maps by default on export.

But not so in LW. Make one little mistake and your map is gone, poof, ceased to exist. It could very well be that that's intentional, based on how LW goes about the whole modeling/mapping thing, but I simply don't think it's right to have it that way.

As for UVLayout, one of my current projects involves mapping a whole sh1tload of models for an independent game I'm working on with some other people. Hundreds, most of which are simple objects, but many of which are more complex. From simple little cups and crates to medium-res creatures. And I can knock these out in UVLayout very quickly, no need for any other programs at all, when the OBJ files are being sent to me from someone else. Some of the models I'm making myself too, but I'm now using Softimage for modeling and I really don't like XSI's UV tools at all. Maybe because I haven't learned it yet really, but there's no need to spend a few hours learning when I already know how to use UVLayout and do it all quickly.

That's not directed at you, Cageman, just another reason why PLG isn't part of my workflow any longer.

Even so, there will be times, mostly for my own projects, when I want to spend some time with LW. The incident that caused me to begin this thread was an example of that, since what I was working on I felt required LW's involvement. And the truth is, I just got aggravated after spending an hour getting all my objects out and appended in ZBrush, only to realize I skipped that step to actually assign the UVs in the surface editor. Am I wrong to be upset about that? Do I have a right to expect LW to deal with OBJ in the way that every other program does? Maybe, maybe not. I would like to say I'll never forget that again in the future, but you never know. I don't think it's too much to ask though that LW automatically use and export the UVs when there is only one map present, and particularly if it was present when the file was imported. I mean, it doesn't decide on its own to not export my material groups, so why should another important and integral part of the file be an exception?

Cageman
11-04-2009, 02:40 AM
I mean, it doesn't decide on its own to not export my material groups, so why should another important and integral part of the file be an exception?

I have to assume that it has to do with how LightWave handles vertex maps internaly (which is quite different from most other apps), and for some reason, it is "incompatible" with the OBJ format. I take LightWaves v-maps implementation any day over what I have seen in other applications, so this glitch is a small price to pay concidering what I gain from using LightWaves v-maps system in production.

That said, I do understand your frustration, and this glitch could very well be resolved, but in my book it's one of those things that I can live with.

:)

IMI
11-04-2009, 02:47 AM
That said, I do understand your frustration, and this glitch could very well be resolved, but in my book it's one of those things that I can live with.

:)

We'll just have to settle this on the battlefield. :D :2guns:

Oh BTW, this IS the feature requests forum, and I DID say in my first post that I hope CORE has this.
Nah, I don't really expect this to get changed in LW 9.6.1, or LW-HC, and honestly it would be low on my list of fix requests, but it would be nice if a future LW does away with this annoyance. :)