Yes, this would go far beyond the stuff that I did for the isosurface patch. 
The concept is to design a texture in 3D space and then take a slice along the
XY plane and wrap it around the object's UV coordinates.

My first version used option 2 (uv_mapping as a property of each pigment,
normal, and texture), but it was kind of buggy (maybe not as bad as I think)
and confusing. Like I said before, I think tagging the object with the
uv_mapping property would be cleaner in the end and cause much less confusion.

-Nathan Kopp

Mike Hough wrote:
> 
> I think the first choice is fine for a start.  Perhaps you could file option
> 2 away until 1 is nice and polished.  Is this going to be something beyond
> what the isosurface patch does (ie. uv mapping on a single bezier patch)?
> 
> Btw, anyone know what map_types 3 and 4 are supposed to eventually become?
>

Post a reply to this message