Thanks for the information, Holy Diver. The model and texture has been complete for a while, I just wanted to show John the problem Metasequoia has when it draws the lines upon exporting the UV mapping. Its likely not meant to be a texture bake option, probably just a rough reference to the face placement in the texture.
Ive found that generating a base texture with padding in another program is alot easier than remapping the outer edges.
It almost looks like the UV coordinates have been shifted upwards in your screenshot Ben. I tried to recreate the problem I was seeing earlier where Meta shifted the UV coordinates slightly, but couldn't make it happen again. It must only occur under some circumstances. I'm thinking this is being caused by either a bug or an incompatibility somewhere in the tool-conversion-chain. Meta's file format is certainly capable of UV precision and it uses DirectX to render so models should come out looking the same as they will in SoM.
I really can't tell what is going on without looking inside a sample file. If you come across a file whose UV seems to shift when it is loaded into, or saved by Metasequoia, it would be good to check it out. I may be a bug worth reporting.
I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be here.
By outer I assume you mean the lines near the tan areas and not the edges cutting down the middle of the model. You need to move the edges far away from the tan region, or colour a thick border in around them.
A difference of 1.0000 to 0.9998 is rounding error. Most likely the program is just not displaying as many decimal places as it could just to save room in the display field. A 32bit floating point value has a precision of 6 decimal places with the last place not considered to be reliable.
Also remember that 1 is (literally) the same number as 0.99999... (ad infinitum)
FPUs are not perfect, there is always rounding error. The only way to get a value of exactly 1 is to either not compute it, or compute it with a rational number. In other words 0.9998 is 1. That's not your problem.
Its completely fine and no problems. Flip I hope I havent distracted people, im not experiencing an issue, rather a minor inconvenience. I found a workaround probably 1.5 years ago, im just showing the bad line generation.
(2013-04-11, 01:20 PM)Verdite link Wrote: Its completely fine and no problems. Flip I hope I havent distracted people, im not experiencing an issue, rather a minor inconvenience. I found a workaround probably 1.5 years ago, im just showing the bad line generation.
Maybe I am confused. Is Metasequoia generating that texture for you or something?
BTW: I find its usually best to do your textures and UV mapping from scratch, instead of relying on projection tools and things. That usually just leads to lazy texture mapping. Like in Demon's Souls. Its good practice to do things from scratch too. Bottom line, in game you really want all of the texels to be about the same size is space, not stretched in either directions, with the exception of interstitial regions where shapes converge into one another. In which case the error shouldn't be much more than a single pixel.
2013-04-11, 01:59 PM (This post was last modified: 2013-04-11, 02:01 PM by Verdite.)
"Maybe I am confused. Is Metasequoia generating that texture for you or something? "
Yes Metasequoia generates an atlas map, see attachment for an example. Dont worry about the faces in it, its an old atlas.
Its just a white background with black lines drawn to indicate where the UV is layed out. I manually modified it and used that tan colour in the earlier picture to indicate the jagged edges and how they affect the model, unless you adjust every UV outer edge line.
"I find its usually best to do your textures and UV mapping from scratch, instead of relying on projection tools and things."
Actually I started doing that in Jan this year, and it saves alot of time in the long run. I do all my textures by hand that includes not using a 3D programs ambient occlusion map for shadow and contours, rather painting the details myself. Its the only way I can be satisfied with my texturing, if I know exactly how its going to turn out.
I used to sculpt then bake the sculpt details into a rendered texture using lamps and light sources to affect the shadow placement, which took just as long as painting the texture but yielded less effective results, for me that is, im sure alot of people prefer to use this method.
I get what you're saying Ben, when you said it affects "how the Atlas is exported", I thought you meant in the model file, but you're talking about the exporting the atlas as a graphic file, right? That seems like it would be tricky for any program because a graphic (BMP etc) has to draw lines 1 pixel wide whereas the UV in the model file can "draw" lines along fractions of a pixel.
I know it doesn't really apply here, but some years ago I got involved with some tests on the accuracy of obj exports and metasequoia stood up really well along side all the other apps (max 5 I recall) so you can see how long ago it was. I think it was good to 6 decimal places.
(2013-04-11, 08:52 PM)airflamesred link Wrote: ...some years ago I got involved with some tests on the accuracy of obj exports and metasequoia stood up really well along side all the other apps ...
Meta's UVs have always seemed precise to me. I'm not sure what was happening earlier, but I haven't been able to recreate it since. Maybe it had something to do with me having the EasyUV panel open, or maybe I was just doing something stupid. That has been known to happen ha ha
