nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Otherwise, it seems pretty straightforward. Altho there are a couple (so
>> far) of bothersome limitations, particularly in the textures. (Like, I don't
>> know how to do checkerboards or hex shapes or some of the other stuff POV
>> has built in, and you can't rotate a texture directly, so your wood rings
>> are fixed in one axis - just minor stuff like that).
> 
> Much more powerful procedural textures are coming to Blender soon enough,
> completely modifiable via the nodes editor as well.  Anyway, most people into
> Blender -- and most other 3D apps as well -- simply use image maps, though
> being a povhead myself, I never quite adapted to the whole UV-unwrap thing
> either.
> 
Well, I don't get how they do it anyway. I mean, you "unwrap" your mesh 
to a pattern which is either a) sort of like the original, but not 
really, or b) a lot of squares, where you can't tell the original 
geometry. Then you paint it, reimport, overlay it into the UV pattern 
then how the frack it works. Think the guys with.. deep paint, or what 
ever its called, have it right. Lose the idiot, "make it some place 
else, then glue it on like a label", BS and just paint directly on the 
object, like you would in the real world. If you can't precisely control 
the texture, its position, etc., or get an "accurate" mesh layout to 
draw into, what is the point? And, even if its "may" be accurate, 
technically, it takes a very different mind than mine to "get" how the 
two correspond, without having some way to "see it" as I am doing the 
drawing.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In Blender it is possible to paint directly on the model using texture 
paint. Works best if it is a low-poly model with subsurf that can be turned 
off while painting. It isn't something that I've completely mastered but I 
have been able to get it to work pretty well. That is how I created the 
texture map for this model http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqmRT87HhtE

I created a grid pattern for the uvmap, unwrapped the head and applied the 
map, and then used texture paint to block in the colors, like the eyebrows, 
eyeliner, lips, and blush. The image at that point shows the features well 
enough to figure out what-goes-where and then I added details in photoshop. 
Takes quite a long time so I've been putting it off for several other models 
in the works. I find the hardest part is remembering all the steps involved 
in using the uv editor.

Mike


"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message 
news:4998e2a7$1@news.povray.org...
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Otherwise, it seems pretty straightforward. Altho there are a couple (so
>>> far) of bothersome limitations, particularly in the textures. (Like, I 
>>> don't
>>> know how to do checkerboards or hex shapes or some of the other stuff 
>>> POV
>>> has built in, and you can't rotate a texture directly, so your wood 
>>> rings
>>> are fixed in one axis - just minor stuff like that).
>>
>> Much more powerful procedural textures are coming to Blender soon enough,
>> completely modifiable via the nodes editor as well.  Anyway, most people 
>> into
>> Blender -- and most other 3D apps as well -- simply use image maps, 
>> though
>> being a povhead myself, I never quite adapted to the whole UV-unwrap 
>> thing
>> either.
>>
> Well, I don't get how they do it anyway. I mean, you "unwrap" your mesh to 
> a pattern which is either a) sort of like the original, but not really, or 
> b) a lot of squares, where you can't tell the original geometry. Then you 
> paint it, reimport, overlay it into the UV pattern then how the frack it 
> works. Think the guys with.. deep paint, or what ever its called, have it 
> right. Lose the idiot, "make it some place else, then glue it on like a 
> label", BS and just paint directly on the object, like you would in the 
> real world. If you can't precisely control the texture, its position, 
> etc., or get an "accurate" mesh layout to draw into, what is the point? 
> And, even if its "may" be accurate, technically, it takes a very different 
> mind than mine to "get" how the two correspond, without having some way to 
> "see it" as I am doing the drawing.
>
> -- 
> void main () {

>     if version = "Vista" {
>       call slow_by_half();
>       call DRM_everything();
>     }
>     call functional_code();
>   }
>   else
>     call crash_windows();
> }
>
> <A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 3D 
> Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> ever its called, have it right. Lose the idiot, "make it some place 
> else, then glue it on like a label", BS and just paint directly on the 
> object, like you would in the real world. 

That's one of the things Animation Master got right. You could just stamp an 
image down. Especially nice if you modeled something based on orthographic 
views, because then you could just slap the image down.

I saw another program where you could draw the geometry, then hand basically 
a frontal view to an artist who would paint on the view you'd see from the 
camera, and then you could import that right back onto the model. Find spots 
you couldn't see, get the artist to fill them in, reimport, lather rinse 
repeat. The examples used buildings in game levels, so I'm not sure how good 
it would be for faces or something. It helped that you could put some basic 
texturing on the buildings and let the artist fill in details like dirt and 
rust and signs and cobwebs and doorknobs and stuff.

The UV mapping in blender lets you do other stuff, tho, too, like 
automatically baking shadows into the images so you can turn the ray-tracing 
off for drawing animations, and stuff like that.

It's a very complicated program.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

> Does anyone here use blender?

Glad you seemed to have fixed your problem yourself - sometimes the last 
resort is to make a post somewhere in the hope of getting an answer!

Personally I've mainly used Blender for mesh generation and simple UV 
texture mapping (for export for use in a game), but I did dabble a bit with 
the bones and animation features.  I do remember a couple of things about 
that where, like you say, doing seemingly exactly the same thing would 
sometimes work and sometimes not (to do with getting an animal walking).  To 
this day I don't think I ever figured out what it was, and the tutorials I 
was following seemed to be based on a previous version of Blender.  I just 
lost interest in the end.

Post a reply to this message

Am Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:08:53 -0800 schrieb Darren New:

> Does anyone here use blender?

I'm using it. Not for rendering mainly, but for designing cardboard 
models (ok, not the best-suited program for that task like for example 
Rhino, but Rhino isn't free as in beer). Modelling, constructing and 
scripting basically.


OOC, does anybody here do cardboard modelling (or papercraft, whatever 
you call it)?

Micha

Post a reply to this message

On 14-2-2009 22:08, Darren New wrote:
> Does anyone here use blender?
> 
yes.

Oh, and I am one of them. Mainly using it for meshes that never get 
rendered (as in 3D models of humans to do electrical computations in). I 
do have 3 instances of it open at the moment. When I do render 
something, I always fall back on the POVanim package 
(http://jmsoler.free.fr/util/blenderfile/fr/povanim_en.htm) The 
existence of which should have answered your question.

Post a reply to this message

Michael Zier wrote:
> I'm using it. Not for rendering mainly, but for designing cardboard 
> models 

Actually, that sounds like a real win for UV unwrapping. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I always fall back on the POVanim package 

Oh, very cool. I'll definitely have to check that out!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On 16-2-2009 19:47, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I always fall back on the POVanim package 
> 
> Oh, very cool. I'll definitely have to check that out!
> 
In my experience it does not work straight as installed. He seems to put 
the mesh in another directory as the POV file points to. Easily fixed if 
that happens, but just in case you will be wondering if you did 
something wrong...

Post a reply to this message

Am Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:45:50 -0800 schrieb Darren New:

> Michael Zier wrote:
>> I'm using it. Not for rendering mainly, but for designing cardboard
>> models
> 
> Actually, that sounds like a real win for UV unwrapping. :-)

Well, not really. UV unwrapping doesn't (normally) care to preserve the 
shape of the individual faces, which is deadly for unfolding paper 
models. There's the "Unfold Mesh" script (now included in the Blender 
distro) which is doing what you might want, but I wrote a new unfolding 
script more suited to my needs. 
You might find it and some additional scripts here:
http://www.kartonbau.de/wbb2/thread.php?
threadid=17937&threadview=1&hilight=&hilightuser=0&page=2#post283818
(registration and german language knowledge might be required)

Post a reply to this message