Christopher James Huff wrote:
> And assuming you finally figure out how to automatically define a 
> mapping, you'll just get something that doesn't make any sense to a 
> human.

I agree that many mappings one might pick would be unintuitive, but that 
does not mean that it's impossible to define a good mapping.  For 
example, having the u and v coordinates follow the lines of principal 
curvature I imagine would often give pretty good results (provided one 
takes care of the ambiguities in this definition, like where to put the 
origin, what to do with planar regions, etc).

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that it would be difficult to 
implement such a system, and that it would probably render unreasonably 
slowly anyway.  This is probably the sort of thing that would be better 
solved by having a scripting language for materials, so that ambitious 
users could program in their curvature-based uv mapping or whatever 
suites their needs for the object they wish to model.

Post a reply to this message