Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by simmsimaging

  1. That didn't seem to make any difference: In the pic below I added type ("1024") with the PTEX resolution in the Tool Options set at 1K. Then I changed it to 2K and hit Optimize and added text ("2048"). The resolution looks identical and the texture exported to .ptx format is exactly the same file size. Not sure what I am missing here?
  2. I am using pro version, and I can see all those options. However, it is not really clear what that texture setting is doing. It does not seem to make a big difference in the size of the .PTEX file that gets exported. I think I am not really making the questions clear, so maybe I can ask in a different way: 1) Is it possible to change the global size of the PTEX map after you initially create it using this dialog: When I use this option: It only seem to increase local resolution for small areas that I choose using the PTEX Local Resolution. How can I increase the whole map if I realize the initial size is too small? Thanks for your help and patience! /b
  3. I have used that control - that is the PTEX resolution that I mentioned above. If I adjust the map size in that tool option I do not see any difference in the output map quality or file size. If I hit “increase resolution” on a selection of faces they do get higher res, but I cannot see how it is connected to that resolution setting (2048x2048, etc). How does that resolution control work? How do you increase the overall size of the PTEX map and not just on selected faces?
  4. A related question that might just solve the issue: if I skip exporting PTEX and just use teh Export>Objects and Textures and output some TGA files instead - how do I control the resolution of those maps? The PTEX texture resolution setting does not seem to have any effect on my outputs at all. thanks!
  5. Thanks. I had reviewed these and a number of other references as well, but they did not seem to clarify the resolution question.
  6. Once this PTEX texture size is set, can it be changed globally or just in selected faces? Does this setting affect how the PTEX will work with subdivided models when loaded in Maya? I did try to change that Texture Size prior to saving out the PTEX via Export>/PTEX to Color but it did not seem to make any difference. I am not clear on how that setting works, or how to take advantage of it. Does it work in combination with "increase resolution" Thanks again!
  7. Long time away from 3DC and 3D in general, so scraping off some rust and testing workflows. I am just roughing out some PTEX paint on a primitive cube. I can export it okay (but if I try to export from the default head/bust it goes a bit crazy). However, when I load the PTEX in Maya it looks very lo-res. The PTEX file itself is only 2.1 MB. I have tried using "set Mesh and Texture resolution" and set it to 4K and 8K and it doesn't seem to matter. Any advice would be appreciated. /b
  8. Fully agree. I'm starting to think Mari might actually be worth the money - but I'm hoping the painting gets tuned up before I cave in.
  9. Thanks for the new UV tools! So far they work well. It took a minute to figure out that it's a bit different in that you need to define the *actual* end point, and then add points "point to point" in between, rather than sketch it out point to point from start to finish, but it works well so far. Thank you for considering the input and adding this function. b
  10. I think that might create problems too - when you have really long edges you are trying to select that are surrounded by small ones. I think the problem could be solved already with the point-to-point option added, then you would just need to use a smaller brush and click twice to cover that whole line of small edges.
  11. + 1 on both. The first one especially - I recall asking about that before too.
  12. 1) Point to point edge selection. the current shift-click system is okay in some cases, but breaks down in others (as has been pointed out, at quad/tri boundaries etc.) Point to point will make for very quick selection on odd shapes and complex topologies. 2) Added unwrap tools: - At current the ability to take an edge loop/ring and make it "horizontal' or "vertical" is cool, but without a tension/soft selection mechanism it just creates a lot of stretching. An added ability to redistribute the polygons once an edge has been straightened would fix that. Unfold3D had that capability and it was hugely useful (it also had a good point to point selection system) /b
  13. Hey Digman - Thanks for checking this out. I had tried the horizontal/vertical thing before but not with a full edge ring so it was only moving the one line of edges. It's *kinda* like what Unfold does, if you have a full selection of all horizontal or vertical edges, but doesn't have the tension/soft selection kind of effect that fixes stretching at the same time. I think that's why ultimately you still have problems on the ends. Still though - the way it works here is still going to be useful so thanks for that! Regarding Hexagon: thanks for the tip. At this point I don't think the best answer is to add a new modeler into the pipeline though. I'd rather just find a good UV solution instead, but in this case too: the model is from stock so it's not like I would have built it anyway The link to the 3DC file and the OBJ file are still in this post - hopefully Andrew will check it out.
  14. Yeah, that is exactly what Unfold3D did - and it only cost $1000 and crashed constantly The functionality is perfect though. Agreed. Point to point seam selection (again like Unfold3D had) gets around this. I requested it a long time ago but only a few users got involved in the discussion - I don't think Andrew ever aknowledged it (that I remember anway) so don't know if it ever got considered.
  15. Sure - here is the obj: (95.44 KB) And here is what I got with 3DC in the last test: (324.82 KB Thanks for taking a look. b
  16. Thanks for looking at it digman. That didn't fix it for me though: It might be something specific to the angle of the bend, dunno for sure. In any case, it's obviously not very controllable - the Unfold3D edge controls would really be a kick-ass addition and very useful for this kind of thing. Also very good for things like labels/decals - pretty much anywhere that you might need to unwrap, but still keep square edges. /b
  17. I suppose you could, but a bit easier said than done, particularly if you are concerned with keeping the Uv's fairly straight, and without a 'soft selection' kind of approach it would be pretty tedious no? The point in my mind is that the workflow advantages (speed/ease) kind of fall apart and I'd be better off UV'ing it somewhere else. It's kind of a gap in what is otherwise I pretty good UV'g toolkit, at least to me. b
  18. Sorry - can't seem to edit the post. Does this work better:
  19. I have a simple object but it is one that seems to defy easy UV'ing in 3DC: If it wasn't bent it would be an easy cylindrical map in Max (or whatever) but with the bend it's very tricky to do without pelt mapping. I tried the various unwrap algorithms in 3DC but it always produces bad stretching on the two ends of the bent cylinders. Unfold3D had some really good tools for dealing with this kind of shape: it would allow you to select a seam or row of edges and define it as "vertical' or "horizontal' and lock that edge and then reflow the UV's to align with it. That would, in this case, produce a nice long flat rectangle of UV's for the body of the cylinder. 3DC doesn't seem to have any capability for handling this - or am I missing something? (I am aware I can just cut it up differently, but that precludes me from using the tiling textures I have for this part, and is beside the point anyway ) /b
  20. Having tested Mudbox 2013 I am still finding major problems with fine detail painting on many meshes. It's amazingly fast for big areas/hi-res/large brush painting though. So of course I have one working great in 3DC, and one in Mudbox, but neither does both at the moment.... My question for Andrew: I just wanted to verify that you had acknowledged and were working on the brush performance problems for painting? I seem to remember you posting that you were going to look into it, but so many of the brush problems/requests have to do with voxel stuff that I'm not really sure anymore. Can you confirm that this is something on the priority list for updating/upgrading? I see it as the number one stumbling block to 3DCoat becoming a fully capable texturing tool at almost any production level, and just to re-iterate: texturing is 95% of my interest in 3DC (another 3% for UV work, and 2% for voxel type work). I understand priorities vary Thanks /b