news:412682c5@news.povray.org...
>
> I'm not sure you really understand. The 3D-ishness won't be lost; in fact,
> if the final UV map were of infinite resolution, the resulting UV mapped
> mesh will look *exactly* the same as if it were still using the procedural
> texture. The goal is to make a UV-map which, when mapped to the mesh, will
> look the same. This has to be done by sampling the procedural texture
along
> the (probably curved and 3D) surface of the mesh and then transferring
those
> samples onto a 2D image.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be 3D, just that by using the usual uv
mapping techniques it won't be, unless a lot of hand tweaking is involved. I
remember having this exact problem with a model of a wood toy: procedural
wood was perfect for it, but default uv mapping sucked because it was
basically 2D, so 3D-ishness had to be recreated by hand. I believe I
understand what Ekolis would like to do, but the problem is still that you
need to create a relation between the 3d coordinates and the uv vectors at
some point. Once you have sampled the pigment in the 3D space, it will tell
you what pigment should be at any 3D point, but it won't tell you how to
organise the map itself, for instance where the seams should be or how to
arrange the vertices in the <0,0>,<1,1> 2D area without losing too much
space. It's all about unwrapping a a 3D object in 2D, which is not trivial.
The only trivial (?) way would be to assign a map to every polygon...

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message