Thanks again for the reply TIG. Unfortunately, I see the same issues. To verify it wasn't the small differences in faces from DropVertices, I made a copy of the bottom textured model and moved it directly above. I removed the top materials and then ran the script. UV issue is still there. Have you actually downloaded the file and run this script with the top mesh faces selected? Have you seen the UV issues or did it look okay for you? Honestly, I guess I will just give up at this point.

I have figured out another sort of workaround where I make a sandbox mesh above the original, run this script we wrote (which does perfectly with the texture and UVs when the raycast is from a flat surface), then use UVToolkit to save the UVs, then drop the vertices and then restore the UVs. It works. A few extra steps but this script has been enough of a headache.

Regardless, thanks for your help.

@tig said:

I can see some issues, BUT you need to clarify what face's texture you are copying with UVs and onto which face you apply them...

Maybe I'm just explaining it wrong, but I don't know how to be more clear about what I'm after. I have uploaded a few pictures about what I'm after as well as a model which allows me to test.

In the model I have the original on the bottom and the recreated mesh on the top. I want the textures and UVs of the faces on the bottom to be copied to the untextured model above.

Sorry. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're asking.

Thanks for being patient.

@tig said:

In my earlier version, if I make the to textured and project it onto a lower surface the top one's UV mapping is repeated on the lower surface.
So I know it works.
You just need to swap top/bottom properly to apply to you own chosen set up...

If you use a blank face's UV mapping you won't get what's on the UV-mapped face...

Try it with just a few facets first...

Maybe I'm having trouble understanding. I'll use the script you posted and the test model I posted. What was your exact process to get the UVs on the top model looking like the original on the bottom? Maybe our process is just different. I assumed you used the test model I uploaded?

@tig said:

So your convention is upper surface has 'no-material', lower surface has 'textures'.
Unless you known the two meshes have identical faces you can't safely tale a point on an upper facet and project down and be sure of hitting a lower facet...
But for now let's assume all goes well and we have 'hits', how are you going to get the lower facet's texture ?
Isn't it better to process each lower textured facet, and project upwards to get a matching upper facet.
You then need to get the UV mapping for the lower facet, and apply it to the lower facet's material which is applied onto the equivalent upper facet.

Just think about which is which...

It really doesn't matter to me which direction is taken. I'm absolutely fine using the method you suggest where we raycast up applying the material and UVs from the raycast source face to the hit face. Works for me.

I think your edits to my script were doing just that. But I got the same results as mine where the UVs were messed up

Thinking about it, because I'm using drop vertices and the meshes are nearly identical but not perfectly the same, could that be causing issues with the UVs? Perhaps that's the issue where it copies it just fine but because the faces differ, we get issues.

So if that's the case, the next questions is how difficult it would be to modify drop vertices to preserve the UVs when it drops. Vertex Tools has a similar feature where you can lock the UVs.

Would that be an easier approach?

Thanks as always, TIG.

@tig said:

In your image face_below is the 'source' face [the inverse of my assumptions].
And therefore face_above is the 'target', so your code needs to swap them to suit.
AND the ' raytest' then needs to follow Z_AXIS.reverse, so it look up NOT down...

BOTH will work, BUT just be consistent...

Exactly. So we are raytesting from face_above downwards to face_below (the source) to get the materials and UV. Apologies for the confusion.

This still has no effect on the UVs though, which are still not working. I have attached the script with the above agreed upon naming convention and additional clarifying comments. Try it in the test scene if you get a chance. Thanks TIG.

Fixed naming conventions

@tig said:

If you want to recast [all but flip ?] it, so the face_below.material BELOW gets 'projected' onto the face_above... then you firstly need to swap my naming conventions etc, AND also change the Z_AXIS code to project your raytest upward, rather than down...

I'm sure that if we can agree a common 'framework' this can be resolved...

Isn't face_above raytesting down to face_below and then sampling the UVs the same as face_below raytesting up to face_above and setting the UVs?

The original script I had written did the raytest downwards from the face_above and got the material and UV from face_below.

Here is a terrible illustration to show what I mean:

Either way, it doesn't bother me which way is preferred. All I want is for the Texture mapping uvs to look on the above mesh, just like the below mesh.

The easiest way to see what I am talking about would be to download the sample project and script I attached. Select the faces in the model that's on top and then run the script.

Thanks TIG

Hey TIG! Thanks a bunch for the reply

I think there was maybe some confusion about what I was trying to accomplish here and perhaps the function name is misleading.

I have textured terrain from an old game with way too many subdivisions and I want to simplify it. So I make a terrain with the correct size, and then use Drop Vertices to make the terrains the same height. I then move the new terrain up directly over the old terrain and then run my script which would do the raycast and copies from the model below. I think you assumed I would do it the other way around and my function name "Copy Materials -> To Nearest Below" was totally misleading. My apologies.

I switched the the face arguments in the process_face function and it works again.

When I run the script, I still get some strange looking results. In the image below, the left is the original and the right is the one that the script made.

Notice that the UV mapping looks quite off, still. If I run the script on a flat sandbox mesh above the original mesh, it copies the UVs fine but I need it to be fine when the mesh is not flat. Or find a way to drop the vertices without messing up the UVs.

I have reduced the size of the model I am using to test so hopefully you're able to try it with this test case.

Again, your time is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

A test scene for this plugin. Select the faces in the top (untextured) model and go to Extensions->Copy Materials->From Nearest Below

The script with TIG's revisions and the argument order in the process_faces reversed

Played around with it a bit more last night. Couldn't find anything that jumped out as incorrect. Does anyone have any more suggestions? Happy to try anything

I appreciate it!

@tig said:

Read up on this:
http://ruby.sketchup.com/Sketchup/UVHelper.html
and this:
http://ruby.sketchup.com/Sketchup/Face.html#position_material-instance_method

PS: Please format your code examples using

[code]...[/code]

rather that

[ruby]...[/ruby]

It's much easier to read...

Always wondered why my posts looked so strange right after being posted but then fixed themselves.

Thanks for the links.

So what I understand from this block:

		samples = []
		samples << face_two.vertices[0].position			   ### 0,0 | Origin
		samples << samples[0].offset(face_two.normal.axes.x) ### 1,0 | Offset Origin in X
		samples << samples[0].offset(face_two.normal.axes.y) ### 0,1 | Offset Origin in Y
		samples << samples[1].offset(face_two.normal.axes.y) ### 1,1 | Offset X in Y
		xyz = [];uv = []### Arrays containing 3D and UV points.
		uvh = face_two.get_UVHelper(true, true, texture_writer)
		samples.each { |position|
		xyz << position ### XYZ 3D coordinates
		
		# I switched this to front_UVQ
		uvq = uvh.get_front_UVQ(position) ### UV 2D coordinates
		uv << self.flattenUVQ(uvq)
		}
	  
		pts = [] ### Position texture.
		(0..3).each { |i|
		pts << xyz[i]
		pts << uv[i]
		}
	  
		# set the position and material of face_one
		mat = face_two.material
		face_one.position_material(mat, pts, true)

From this function that I have adapted from your script, it seems like it should be correct.

1. Gets the position of the four points from the face which we want to sample (0, 0), (1, 0), (0, 1), and (1, 1)
2. Put the vertex position and UV coordinates (flattened - not sure why although not flattening had no effect) into two arrays (UVs returned in a point form, but only the x and y are used as u and v).
3. Interlace these arrays as the position_material function calls for.
4. Call position_material. Supply the correct material (which I do), the points (which I obviously don't) and true as it is a front face.

I understand what's going on here. I am a bit confused about why we are flattening the UVs but the math behind the function to do so makes sense.

Still stumped on what exactly I am getting wrong about the point array...

Edit: Interestingly, if I just leave the model flat and raycast down, it gets the texture and orientation correct. Now I am wondering if it's the raycast, but I really doubt it...

Also, it didn't seem to matter if I included just three points (0,0), (0,1) and (1,1) for both the points and uvs.

Edit: I have attached what I have so far (code wise)

The latest episode in my endless struggle for simplification

I have found what look like a relevant function in FixReversedFaceMaterials.rb and have adapted it but it doesn't seem to do what I want. I changed the function to accept two faces, the one that needs the correct UVs (face_one) and the other that was hit during the raycast (face_two).

def self.process_face(face_one, face_two)
  
	# yes, I can create this outside and pass it in
    texture_writer=Sketchup.create_texture_writer
	
	if face_two.material.texture==nil 
		# no texture on the raycast hit! skip it.
	else
	
		# it looks like we are sampling the uvs from face two - which was hit in the raycast
		samples = []
		samples << face_two.vertices[0].position			   ### 0,0 | Origin
		samples << samples[0].offset(face_two.normal.axes.x) ### 1,0 | Offset Origin in X
		samples << samples[0].offset(face_two.normal.axes.y) ### 0,1 | Offset Origin in Y
		samples << samples[1].offset(face_two.normal.axes.y) ### 1,1 | Offset X in Y
		xyz = [];uv = []### Arrays containing 3D and UV points.
		uvh = face_two.get_UVHelper(true, true, texture_writer)
		samples.each { |position|
		xyz << position ### XYZ 3D coordinates
		
		# I switched this to front_UVQ
		uvq = uvh.get_front_UVQ(position) ### UV 2D coordinates
		uv << self.flattenUVQ(uvq)
		}
	  
		pts = [] ### Position texture.
		(0..3).each { |i|
		pts << xyz[i]
		pts << uv[i]
		}
	  
		# set the position and material of face_one
		mat = face_two.material
		face_one.position_material(mat, pts, true)


	end
end

It does copy the material but the UVs are still incorrect.

I have left some comments explaining my thought process. I am curious if it's different because yours works on a front face/back face and this is different.

Thanks for taking a look.