Ah, ok, I'm getting it.. yeah, you'll have to cut eventually, it just didn't seem the right place for me, so I was wondering. The way I usually do it is use a painted scope map to blend two UV objects.. with this technique you'll have to make sure that both parts share some polygons at the seam, so you have overlap.. the rest is easy to do with photoshop blur on black&white..
Daniel PS: the blue guy doesn't need UVs... he's too cool for that ;) On 11/10/06, Matthias Kappenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the infos :-) My task is: Creating really good UV-Coordinates for a complete alien-character. ( :-). (I'm in a test, my site-alien has hands now, should be for the "blueman", too. He has no proper UVs) Here's what I did: I've created two UV-Sets one part for the upper half of the arm+hand and one for a finger. Then I've merged the two UV-Sets and created a screenshot from the UV-ViewWindow. I've used the screenshot as BackdropImage in the UV-view and as Illumination-Map for the merged UV-Set. Everything is looking as exspected. The borders from the UV-View screenshot image can't match the SDS borders exactly because of the SDS interpolation, I know that :-? (The UV-Set is set to Interpolate Boundary) Next try was to expand the UV-parts by one face and switch of Interpolate Boundary, but this gives me holes at the seems :-( What I like to have: UV-parts which match exactly at the seems. Why not connect? Hmmm, it's a hand and it should be impossible to get good UV-Cordinates without cutting the UVs here and there. I'll give Arjo's tip a go, and I'll try it with a scope-map, too. Maybe I should cut on other faces :-? The UVs are needed for displacement maps. And I try to realize it in RS only ;-) (Not with Z-Brush, Modo or other tools) I'll post the result and my way after getting it. Thanks for the input, Matthias ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 6:44 PM Subject: Re: UV-subpart question :-? > I'm not sure I understand. If you want there to be no visible seam > between the objects, why not connect the two UV patches.. ? > > Maybe I'm not getting it... > > Daniel > > On 11/10/06, Arjo Rozendaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Matthias, > > > > I noticed that it's a lot easier to manipulate an UV mesh when you attach a > > texture first. I don't understand why, but the UV editor behaves quite > > strange when there's no texture attached. So I would suggest to create some > > basic mapping and then use the map2obj tool to map the material to the faces > > of the object. When you choose the material name in the UV editor you can > > easily move the UV mesh around. > > > > Arjo. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matthias Kappenberg > > > Sent: vrijdag 10 november 2006 13:18 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: UV-subpart question :-? > > > > > > > > > Me again, > > > > > > pressed to fast ENTER, sorry. > > > > > > Please have a look here: > > > > > > http://the-final.com/uv-qt.gif > > > > > > Is there a solution to match > > > exactly the pixels from one subpart to another? > > > > > > THX in advance, > > > Matthias > > > > > > > >
