Cheers Raff and Enrique. By control i meant with uv's you can use an image sequence to deform a mesh, that or any number of procedural effects manipulating maps. there are a lot of things you can do, and i was wondering if there was any equivalence in PTEX
I also know a company that is considering to opt for a full PTEX workflow, and i was unsure they had properly assessed the pros and cons. which is why your response is particularly useful Raff as you also give clues as to performance issues and rendering. On 9 April 2014 04:49, Raffaele Fragapane <[email protected]>wrote: > In what context? > And what do you mean with "control"? > > PTex is far from the gift to mankind some people thought it would have > been to be honest. > > Not only it's hugely topology dependent, it's also fairly slow, threads > poorly, some times funnels heavily into single threading realm when > processed, can't be conveniently remapped/transferred with commercial > tools, and it has a steep entry fee if you rely on it for more than just > placing texels (again, little is available commercially to re-interpret it). > > It has its place if your entire tool chain supports it for things like > painting, but it's far from a free ride, and it will generally impact > render times negatively more times than not, and that's if you invest > heavily enough into supporting it across the pipe in first place. > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Sebastien Sterling < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Does anyone know if PTEX workflow currently allows for as much control as >> UV ? >> >> or does it by its nature have limitations. >> >> Where it is relatively easy to animate a texture and subsequent >> deformation, how does one go about this in PTEX ? >> > > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it > and let them flee like the dogs they are! >
