Insert on top of the Checker -Material
a "Linear" VSL object...
have a look at the *.gif file.
Yes , thanks for the reply & project file .
I think the coding should be added with the C++ , not the VSL .
It makes no sense to me that RSV6 would re-size the texture ,
then move it to the top-left corner .
As I said ...
I would think 'Finite' would mean , "do not tile it , but limit
it to this area" . 'Scale' , would then mean : "limit it to this
area , but scale it (inside this area)" .
Don't you guys ever get tired of workarounds ?
The shirt is a RS file v6.1...
Hope it's helpy, too.
Yes , I like how you've used the 'UV Sets' . I do like 'UV Sets'
and wish there were more about them in the manual , however ...
REPEAT MODE (\ON)
What would be nice is a 'mesh-based' texture mapping , instead of
the primitives we have now . So yes , as the manual states -
"UV Sets are SDS based" .
OK , so now we are part way there , except we cannot move our
'UV Sets' in an intuative way (is anything intuative in RS?).
Your shirt project is a great example of how nice it would be
if we could 'Point Edit' the 'UV Sets' . We can delete points -
we can do some things with the 'UV Set' , but we cannot even
move the 'UV Sets' from side to side .
It blows my mind , minute by minute ...
I'm 90% finished this 'UV Image' tutorial and have decided to bail
on trying to suggest easy ways to work with UV mappings in RS .
It's a sad state of affairs , I think , that we can easily create
'UV Sets' but are hamstrung , as far as working with them in 3D ,
and have to go into that ridiculous 'UV Editor' , instead .
... but , hey ! That's just me .
The checker-mod material should
show how to modify the checker-size.
Have closer look at the VSL which
generates the checkers. There is
no repeat at all. If you don't like
my solution, maybe a "modulo by 1"
is the right way to generate :-?
Matthias
Yep , it's fine thanks .
garry
>I followed your instructions but it does work for me.
> Well when the attached picture shows what you want to achieve.
> But I don't have version 6.1.3 around. Betatesting continues....
> Otherwise send me your file to see what it looks like overhere.
> Arjo.
Hi :
Yes , same here . I asked how to fill the mapping rectangle
with the smaller squares , not just fill the upper left-corner .
Same when a user tries to isolate a procedural mapping
to certain areas of a ...
1) Cylinder
2) Sphere
3) Cone
4) Cube
5) Etc
No isolated mapping of the Procedural textures , that I can find .
If a user checks 'Finite X' & 'Finite Y' , the 'Width' , 'Height'
'Depth' fields no longer work , but the 'Scale' field does , sort
of , but not the way one would like it to .
Finite Mapping does offer a "stripe" , as a result , but that's
about it .
I would think 'Finite' would mean , "do not tile it , but limit
it to this area" . 'Scale' , would then mean : "limit it to this
area , but scale it (inside this area)" .
thanks
garry
>> Well , unless I'm doing this wrong , somethings not right here .
>> Tried various analytic mappings and they all seem to have the
>> same results with this problem .
>> 1) Create an SDS Rectangle
>> 2) Map a Parallel 'Checkers' texture to the center area of the
>> rectangle
>> 3) Re-size the checkers by changing the 'Scale' field to : .2 .2 .2
>> 4) Limit the mapping to just that area by clicking 'Finite X' & 'Finite
>> Y'
>> Obviously this doesn't work .
>> I hate to ask , but what's the workaround ?
>> studio
