Ship... Space or what?
Ship... Space or what?
Well this is a ship I have made recently. The ship has been made from very primitive object in order to keep the poly count down. It is just quick texturing, so it will be better, for example the engines. But I need some decent texturing software.
Well the sad thing is, that 3ds max converts it in a very gruesome way, so it will look awful.Baladin wrote:Very nice, why not try it out by replacing one of the ship models in your TU folder with this one then taking some screen shots of it in space.
I have to learn 3ds max, because there are no decent dwg converters around.
Edit:
I have managed to use 3dsmax to smooth down the surface so it was not that bad. Bud that freekin atm converter, has destroyed my plans, you could se that the smoothing only appear on the left side, the right side is blunt.
That's not the model converter - you have a problem either with the model in Max or with the export process. Most likely, in Max.
- Try "reset transforms" on the model and see if it sorts out the smoothing groups.
- Or it might just be vertices that aren't properly welded, or something.
.x is the best export format from Max. .3ds works but you lose the smoothing groups unless you have a way to reweld the vertices.
f
- Try "reset transforms" on the model and see if it sorts out the smoothing groups.
- Or it might just be vertices that aren't properly welded, or something.
.x is the best export format from Max. .3ds works but you lose the smoothing groups unless you have a way to reweld the vertices.
f
Ok, but my max can't export to .x it can only to .3ds.Fooli wrote:That's not the model converter - you have a problem either with the model in Max or with the export process. Most likely, in Max.
- Try "reset transforms" on the model and see if it sorts out the smoothing groups.
- Or it might just be vertices that aren't properly welded, or something.
.x is the best export format from Max. .3ds works but you lose the smoothing groups unless you have a way to reweld the vertices.
f
Also I have made the model in Auto CAD, and imported it into max, so and there I only used auto smooth, nothing else.
Thanks it worked, I mean the export. But when I click on the x file to open, nothing happens.Fooli wrote:Max doesn't export to .x natively but there are a few plugins that will do it. Look for the Panda X Exporter (or Panda Xporter tools, there are a few different versions and I forget the last one I saw). They're free.
f
Mmm, I've seen that problem before. See if you can find a free version of a program called 3d Exploration (it's an old version of commercial software that used to be on a site called davidhsmith.net, but that site's down at the moment...)
3d Exploration is a general purpose 3d file converter. You can use it to convert .x to .x and in the process it seems to fix whatever the problem is. Also to convert .3ds to .x if that's an easier way to get stuff out of Max. It may even handle your original CAD files. I believe version 1.5 is trial version which nags you to register, but IIRC it seemed to work fine.
f
3d Exploration is a general purpose 3d file converter. You can use it to convert .x to .x and in the process it seems to fix whatever the problem is. Also to convert .3ds to .x if that's an easier way to get stuff out of Max. It may even handle your original CAD files. I believe version 1.5 is trial version which nags you to register, but IIRC it seemed to work fine.
f
Right. Your problem is, you don't know how to uvmap a model :) I'd guess you just used materials in Max and there's not any actual texturing involved yet.
Texporter is a fab little program, but all it does is generate the outlines of a uvmap for you - a uvmap you need to make yourself, in Max. There are programs that will generate the uvwmap for you but they leave a lot to be desired in my experience.
So you need to read up on the uvwmap and uvwunwrap modifiers, and find some mapping/unwrapping tutorials. Welcome to a new world of pain (ok it's not that bad but it is quite time-consuming).
f
Texporter is a fab little program, but all it does is generate the outlines of a uvmap for you - a uvmap you need to make yourself, in Max. There are programs that will generate the uvwmap for you but they leave a lot to be desired in my experience.
So you need to read up on the uvwmap and uvwunwrap modifiers, and find some mapping/unwrapping tutorials. Welcome to a new world of pain (ok it's not that bad but it is quite time-consuming).
f
No I haven't use max textures I know that is basic. I wanted to map the model, but the UVWmap and theUVWunwrap modifiers just plain useless. For example it doesn't matter if I cylinder, box or spere or other. The overlapping polygons will have the same texture.
And I know the world of pain, i have wasted hours on useless models before, but in AutoCAD.
And I know the world of pain, i have wasted hours on useless models before, but in AutoCAD.
Yeees.... but you can't just apply uvwmap to the whole model and expect it to work. If you apply the modifier to a cylinder shape, say, and tell it that it's a cylinder, then it makes sense of it. If you planar map it, and it's a flat surface, then again it'll work ok.
The process is painful because you need to think about how to map each part of the model - the wings, the guns, the body (etc etc) - and do them individually. So if the shape of the part of the mesh you're thinking about is more or less the same as one of the options in uvwmap (a cylinder, a plane, a box, a sphere) then you can select that part with edit mesh or edit poly, then apply uvwmap and choose the relevant option. Then apply uvwunwrap and see what the result was in terms of the outline. It'll probably need tweaking a bit but you'll get at least halfway there.
If the shape is more complex then you can dispense with uvwmap and just go for the uvwunwrap modifier, which lets you select groups of polys and apply planar mapping to them. Do that with all the faces on the bit of the model you're working on, then scale and rotate them to join up the seams as far as possible. When you're happy, weld the verts and you're done.
That's a vast oversimplification... it takes time to learn and there are tutorials out there to explain it better than I can. Try poopinmymouth.com - the site of a pro artist called Ben Mathis, who has videos of him doing this stuff on much more complex models. Very useful.
By the way, if you apply a chequer material to your model it'll help loads: when the squares of the chequer look square on the model, your mapping is good....
Hope that helps,
f
The process is painful because you need to think about how to map each part of the model - the wings, the guns, the body (etc etc) - and do them individually. So if the shape of the part of the mesh you're thinking about is more or less the same as one of the options in uvwmap (a cylinder, a plane, a box, a sphere) then you can select that part with edit mesh or edit poly, then apply uvwmap and choose the relevant option. Then apply uvwunwrap and see what the result was in terms of the outline. It'll probably need tweaking a bit but you'll get at least halfway there.
If the shape is more complex then you can dispense with uvwmap and just go for the uvwunwrap modifier, which lets you select groups of polys and apply planar mapping to them. Do that with all the faces on the bit of the model you're working on, then scale and rotate them to join up the seams as far as possible. When you're happy, weld the verts and you're done.
That's a vast oversimplification... it takes time to learn and there are tutorials out there to explain it better than I can. Try poopinmymouth.com - the site of a pro artist called Ben Mathis, who has videos of him doing this stuff on much more complex models. Very useful.
By the way, if you apply a chequer material to your model it'll help loads: when the squares of the chequer look square on the model, your mapping is good....
Hope that helps,
f
Depends what you mean... if your model consists of different parts, you need to Attach them using the edit mesh/edit poly modifier - so you're working with one mesh, not several. You can either do that before you map the model, or you can map each part, attach them, then edit the whole uvmap so the bits don't overlap.
If you mean, how do you join points on the uv map together, you need to weld them using the tools menu in the uvwunwrap modifier (or press ctrl-w with the points selected)
f
If you mean, how do you join points on the uv map together, you need to weld them using the tools menu in the uvwunwrap modifier (or press ctrl-w with the points selected)
f
Hey man its awesome!!! I have found this program: unfold3d magic 4.0. It do all the work it unfolds your model automatically, you only need to cut the edges which separate each part of the model, with an easy click and drag method. You could also specify the following thing: how accurate map do you want, more or less area you want, or how much should the distance be between map elements.
Its not the best the tool can do, I have set the options to fold it out this way, because it is easier to texture a part which is aligned in 90°.Fooli wrote:UghI suppose it gives you a good starting point, but if that's the best the tool can do... well, it's not very impressive :] Might save a bit of time though.
Its way better than manually folding everything and its more proportianal than usign box, cylinder or plane. The space usage is an other issue, but I will do that with a plugin in 3ds max. In fact I have found this program on Ben Manthis' page, and he said that he always work with this program on complex models.
Then uses a plugin which you can download at http://www.chuggnut.com/scripts/unwrapt ... ptools.htm, but sadly the site doesn't exist.
So I have to find chugnutt's tool elsewhere.
Manual is way better than any automated tool I've ever used. You just need to learn how to unwrap in the same way you learned how to model. It's a skill in itself.
Anyway, you're right, it's always easier to texture when the uvs are aligned vertically or horizontally, where possible, but the problem you've got there isn't to do with that: it's that there are loads of disconnected bits that will be very difficult to texture with any semblance of a plan (all the bits at the bottom, for example); no part of the model shares texture space; there doesn't seem to be any prioritisation (so that the most visible bits of the model get the most texture space); there are too many seams, making it hard to paint seamlessly; and while some seams may be optimal, in terms of minimising stretching on the texture (I'm thinking of the side pods) they will be a bitch to paint - much better approach would be to planar or sphere map them and correct any distortion in the painting process.
But you'll just have to try painting it and see, that's the only way :]
f
Anyway, you're right, it's always easier to texture when the uvs are aligned vertically or horizontally, where possible, but the problem you've got there isn't to do with that: it's that there are loads of disconnected bits that will be very difficult to texture with any semblance of a plan (all the bits at the bottom, for example); no part of the model shares texture space; there doesn't seem to be any prioritisation (so that the most visible bits of the model get the most texture space); there are too many seams, making it hard to paint seamlessly; and while some seams may be optimal, in terms of minimising stretching on the texture (I'm thinking of the side pods) they will be a bitch to paint - much better approach would be to planar or sphere map them and correct any distortion in the painting process.
But you'll just have to try painting it and see, that's the only way :]
f