 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
image showing my problem mentioned in p.general ... top one /with/
uv_mapping bottom one /without/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (610 KB)
Preview of image 'work.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] none com> wrote:
> image showing my problem mentioned in p.general ... top one /with/
> uv_mapping bottom one /without/
So, you're taking my suggestion of texture baking the marble floor of your dice.
Should look good once it's done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/02/2014 00:31, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
> image showing my problem mentioned in p.general ... top one /with/
> uv_mapping bottom one /without/
The image seems good to me.
The not-uv-mapped is using pattern with a size of 19 (9.5*2),
whereas the uv-mapped is using the same pattern (at z=0) with a size of
1, (range of your uv-vectors).
If you want the same "aspect", you need a scale 1/19 on the texture (of
top mesh).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/16/2014 03:26 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/02/2014 00:31, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
>> image showing my problem mentioned in p.general ... top one /with/
>> uv_mapping bottom one /without/
>
> The image seems good to me.
> The not-uv-mapped is using pattern with a size of 19 (9.5*2),
> whereas the uv-mapped is using the same pattern (at z=0) with a size of
> 1, (range of your uv-vectors).
>
> If you want the same "aspect", you need a scale 1/19 on the texture (of
> top mesh).
>
yep ... that's the obvious answer ;-)
tried all kinds of various transformations ... this image has non uv
mapped scale at 1 and uv mapped scale at 0.05 (~ 1/19 )
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (488 KB)
Preview of image 'work.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/02/2014 12:33, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
> yep ... that's the obvious answer ;-)
>
> tried all kinds of various transformations ... this image has non uv
> mapped scale at 1 and uv mapped scale at 0.05 (~ 1/19 )
>
>
Ok, time to post the whole scene. I'm out of idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/16/2014 09:24 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/02/2014 12:33, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
>
>> yep ... that's the obvious answer ;-)
>>
>> tried all kinds of various transformations ... this image has non uv
>> mapped scale at 1 and uv mapped scale at 0.05 (~ 1/19 )
>>
>>
>
> Ok, time to post the whole scene. I'm out of idea.
>
don't think it's the scene but rather how i've got the object setup in
blender. when i get a chance i'm gong to move the object so that's it
ends up with lower left corner is at 0,0 ... then the object will be
totally in the +x,+z quadrant (povray handiness). i've been playing
around with scale of 1 in texture and fiddle with scaling uv_vectors ...
i've at least got the pattern to appear mapped to the center of the
object. yikes this is turning out to be more involved than anticipated
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/02/2014 16:29, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
> On 02/16/2014 09:24 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 16/02/2014 12:33, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
>>
>>> yep ... that's the obvious answer ;-)
>>>
>>> tried all kinds of various transformations ... this image has non uv
>>> mapped scale at 1 and uv mapped scale at 0.05 (~ 1/19 )
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ok, time to post the whole scene. I'm out of idea.
>>
>
> don't think it's the scene but rather how i've got the object setup in
> blender. when i get a chance i'm gong to move the object so that's it
> ends up with lower left corner is at 0,0 ... then the object will be
> totally in the +x,+z quadrant (povray handiness). i've been playing
> around with scale of 1 in texture and fiddle with scaling uv_vectors ...
> i've at least got the pattern to appear mapped to the center of the
> object. yikes this is turning out to be more involved than anticipated
I just meant the scene with the two squares. It should be short enough.
If blender is in the equation, maybe someone else can help... but
finding first what would have been the correct pov-scene might help too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/16/2014 09:24 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/02/2014 12:33, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
>
>> yep ... that's the obvious answer ;-)
>>
>> tried all kinds of various transformations ... this image has non uv
>> mapped scale at 1 and uv mapped scale at 0.05 (~ 1/19 )
>>
>>
>
> Ok, time to post the whole scene. I'm out of idea.
>
me too (out of ideas) ... posted scene file over in p.b.scene-files
good luck!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/02/2014 20:08, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
> On 02/16/2014 09:24 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 16/02/2014 12:33, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
>>
>>> yep ... that's the obvious answer ;-)
>>>
>>> tried all kinds of various transformations ... this image has non uv
>>> mapped scale at 1 and uv mapped scale at 0.05 (~ 1/19 )
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ok, time to post the whole scene. I'm out of idea.
>>
>
> me too (out of ideas) ... posted scene file over in p.b.scene-files
>
> good luck!
Found. see the answer there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
