If UV mapping were to be implemented in POV , which of the following would you
prefer?

  1)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each OBJECT
  2)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each PIGMENT, TEXTURE, or NORMAL.

-------------------
Choice (1) example:

bicubic_patch
{
  ...
  uv_mapping
  texture { NeatWoodTexture }
}

-------------------
Choice (2) example:

bicubic_patch
{
  ...
  texture { uv_mapping NeatWoodTexture }
}

-------------------

Choice (2) would be more flexible, but creates some interesting questions when
you get into more complicated textures (like texture averages, layered
textures, and texture_map stuff).  With choice (2), you could do fun things
like a normal 3D wooden texture with a UV-mapped dirt texture over it.

Choice (2) is also a bit more difficult to impliment (what I've got now is
probably full of bugs, but it looks really cool).

I personally think that choice (1) is much cleaner and will likely cause fewer
problems overall.  I also don't think that it is overly restricting.

Comments?

-Nathan Kopp

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> If UV mapping were to be implemented in POV , which of the following would you
> prefer?
> 
>   1)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each OBJECT
>   2)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each PIGMENT, TEXTURE, or NORMAL.

If, say, uv mapped normals for example caused a big speed or memory hit,
you might want option 2 for more compatibility.  Otherwise, I think that
option 1 would be fine.

Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom

Post a reply to this message

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?

Nathan Kopp wrote:

> If UV mapping were to be implemented in POV , which of the following would you
> prefer?
>
>   1)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each OBJECT
>   2)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each PIGMENT, TEXTURE, or NORMAL.
>
> -------------------
> Choice (1) example:
>
> bicubic_patch
> {
>   ...
>   uv_mapping
>   texture { NeatWoodTexture }
> }
>
> -------------------
> Choice (2) example:
>
> bicubic_patch
> {
>   ...
>   texture { uv_mapping NeatWoodTexture }
> }
>

Post a reply to this message

Mike Hough wrote:

> Btw, anyone know what map_types 3 and 4 are supposed to eventually become?

FWIW, the map types #define'd in image.h are:

0 PLANAR_MAP
1 SPHERICAL_MAP
2 CYLINDRICAL_MAP
3 PARABOLIC_MAP
4 HYPERBOLIC_MAP
5 TORUS_MAP
6 PIRIFORM_MAP
7 OLD_MAP

Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom

Post a reply to this message

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

The UV mapping that I've experimented with so far does not cause much (if any)
of a speed or memory hit (no matter if it's pigment, texture, or normal).

-Nathan Kopp

Jerry Anning wrote:
> 
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > If UV mapping were to be implemented in POV , which of the following would you
> > prefer?
> >
> >   1)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each OBJECT
> >   2)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each PIGMENT, TEXTURE, or NORMAL.
> 
> If, say, uv mapped normals for example caused a big speed or memory hit,
> you might want option 2 for more compatibility.  Otherwise, I think that
> option 1 would be fine.
> 
> Jerry Anning
> cle### [at] dholcom

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp <nk8### [at] ltuedu> wrote:

> 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.

This reminds me of a feature I wanted a long time ago but haven't 
implemented yet. Imagine you could set up a couple of controllpoints
in 3D space and use them to calculate virtual (3D) coordinate pairs to
use for the textures. The use of this would be mainly in animation
where you alter the shape (slightly) of an object that has a 3d function
texture (all textures in povray). With such controll points you would 
see the marble skin (or something) on your nice dragon to change, but If
you use controll points that are placed on the surface of the object
(manually, or perhaps with a *smart* macro) both before and after the
movement, your object would (maybe) look better... well I'm not good
at explaining things - but perhaps you get the idea..

/ Mathias Broxvall

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> If UV mapping were to be implemented in POV , which of the following would you
> prefer?
> 
>   1)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each OBJECT
>   2)  regular vs. UV mapping is set for each PIGMENT, TEXTURE, or NORMAL.
> 


Good question, but what is UV mapping ?? 

Steve :p

Post a reply to this message