What if unwrapping sketchup models was kinda easy....
-
@rich o brien said:
... It is packaged to look and behave exactly as you're used to in SketchUp...
Think of it as the easiest to use unwrapping tool you ever encountered...
Thing is should we keep going with developement? It would be a priced tool as it's a mammoth undertaking...
If you have thoughts let me know here...enjoy the weekendHow should I enjoy the weekend ?!?!? - holding the finger on the paypal buy button all the time
getting such a tool with the SU-Look and feel is a fantastic outlook! -
@rich o brien said:
Export to Wrap-R
So, I'm not sure I get it. Will it be a standalone tool, or an integrated extension?
-
@thomthom
I don't mean it as criticism. I am genuinely curious why so little has happened in SU since version 2015. It seems most was done to Layout that I hardly ever use.
I kind of agree with you that the main focus should be to make SU a platform but there are areas that 3rd party developers have a hard time adding/fixing stuff.
Better animation with easing is something that should have been added years ago.
(Now finally Fredo is doing something in this area but I still think SU native animation sucks mostly because it only has linear interpolation that never looks good. A plugin like Lumen RT has a very simple to use animation that still looks good. )
Built in support for quads would have been great and would have made texturing easier.
(I really thought that was one of the reasons they hired you.)
I also believe a better graphic engine with lights and shaders would benefit all SU users.
Just to mention a few. -
@jiminy-billy-bob said:
@rich o brien said:
Export to Wrap-R
So, I'm not sure I get it. Will it be a standalone tool, or an integrated extension?
See my previous reply to you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
"We want to see Skatter here also"?
-
One of the useful things in the Sketchup Community forum is the ability to 'Reply as linked topic" which means your reply becomes a new thread allowing the conversation to diverge somewhat without hijacking the original thread.
-
@pixero said:
It seems most was done to Layout that I hardly ever use.
If only it was so...
Unfortunately it's not...
A few things has been added to LayOut, but although it's the most significant thing distinguishing SU between Pro and Make, there's too little that has been done... -
We so desperately need this ...I first heard of UV unwrap in 2002, if im not mistaken. 14 years after it's but fair to expect something like this to come up to serve millions of SU loyal users.. I'll be most delighted to buy the extension.
-
I noticed the size of the UV mapping was different from Wrap-R than what was imported:
Was that an artefact of alpha-software?
@kaas said:If you're going to support fbx, maybe add the option for a 2nd UV channel as well? No use for it in SketchUp itself but for people who need a lightmap channel in Unreal that would be great.
How often do you have different UVs for the light channel - or other channel? Don't you normally have multiple channels matching their size and placement?
-
@thomthom said:
...How often do you have different UVs for the light channel - or other channel? Don't you normally have multiple channels matching their size and placement?
For gaming elements in general they are the same. For architecture though, the lightmap usually is totally different. The mapping coordinates for a tileable texture (brick, concrete etc) can have any value. The lightmap channel must have all uv's in the 0-1 space.
In the pic the lightmap uvs for a concrete structure: unwrapped in 0-1 space.
-
@thomthom said:
I noticed the size of the UV mapping was different from Wrap-R than what was imported
In SU I painted the default checker material. In WrapR when unwrapped it unwrapped within the texture space.
So the texture needs scaling in SU or in WrapR.
What you see in WrapR is not the texture you saw in SU.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
@rich o brien said:
What you see in WrapR is not the texture you saw in SU.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But it will be... Right?
Will WrapR be able to convert a model that was mapped with tileable textures into a single texture?
Like the "combine textures" context menu feature but with multiplanar faces (and no image scale reduction)?
An atlas but only for selected component/group/mesh?
-
Another one of my silly questions. Can someone give me a practical definition of what UV is. I have looked it up in places like Wikipedia but, at least in the context of threads like this one, and do not think I "get it". Thus, why should I understand why UV unwrapping is a big deal?
To be honest, I have seen some examples and videos and I think I get what the issue is even though I do not fully appreciate what the term UV really means.
-
great news ! will wait patiently in line with paypal in hand .
-
@jql said:
@rich o brien said:
What you see in WrapR is not the texture you saw in SU.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But it will be... Right?
Will WrapR be able to convert a model that was mapped with tileable textures into a single texture?
Like the "combine textures" context menu feature but with multiplanar faces (and no image scale reduction)?
An atlas but only for selected component/group/mesh?
That would be a great feature - fantastic for game development. People kept asking for that after I made the Cities Skylines extension.
I wonder how other tools allows this.
I'm guessing you'd need to UV unwrap the entire mesh first - then once it's all done you can do some sort of packing algorithm to put them all into one texture tile. Because I don't think you can combine the texture and then uv unwrap... -
It works great...
-
@ntxdave said:
Another one of my silly questions. Can someone give me a practical definition of what UV is. I have looked it up in places like Wikipedia but, at least in the context of threads like this one, and do not think I "get it". Thus, why should I understand why UV unwrapping is a big deal?
U and V are just common variable names such as X, Y and Z. It's convention.
When we talk about mapping a texture, which is a 2d bitmap to a 3d mesh we need to define where the texture will be place on each of the polygons in the 3d face. To do that we need to attach 2d coordinates to each of the 3d points.
While X and Y can represent these 2d texture coordinates it gets confusing if we also use XYZ for the 3d points. So by arbitrary convention we usually refer to texture mapping coordinates as UV onto XYZ 3d mesh points.
UV unwrapping is a big deal - or I'd rather say important, because it's required in being able to map a texture continuously across a mesh. You can imagine how you do gift wrapping; you take a 2d sheet of paper and wrap it around your object. If you force it you end up with wrinkles. Now imagine that you cannot make your paper overlap itself - you need to take a scissor and cut away pieces - but you want to make as few cuts as possible so that it looks nice and hide the seams.
(Did that make any sense?)
-
These are also another UVs methods!
-
@ThomThom & @Pilou - Thanks for such good explanations. This is exactly what I thought I understood from my other reading but needed some confirmation.
Now another question: How do you get the 2d texture to map? In particular when I look at the ThomThom's example of the face. How do you get the flat face texture that you are mapping to your mesh?
Once again, I really appreciate you guys putting up with these elementary questions so those of us who are just getting started/trying to learn ask. I can see the whole importance of where this is headed and think it is going to play a big role in 3d modeling of all types in the future.
-
I wish something suitable for fast texturing of 'conventional' architectural objects would eventually appear inside Sketchup:
Advertisement