Perimeter mapping seems to be gone from VW2023.

[MGuilfoile]

It seems like perimeter mapping is no longer one of the options when mapping textures in VW2023. If this is true, it MUST be brought back. What in the world were you VW folk thinking? In my experience, it is the most useful of all the Map Types.

 

Also, certain mapping types do not allow manipulation by the Attribute Mapping Tool. Again, this must be changed. In short, if a person can imagine how a tool can be used to adjust something (for example, SurfaceUV) then that tool must work everywhere. The same is true of the Rotate tool. If I'm looking at a hybrid symbol in elevation and I want to rotate it, I should be able to rotate it. It does not matter that it has a 2D image for Plan. the 2D image should just be detached while the symbol is rotated.

 

Thanks,

MH Brown

[Andy Broomell]

8 minutes ago, Matt Panzer said:

 

I do not see any movement on this but did add a comment to the VE (VE-103483) asking them about the possibilities of addressing this serious regression in the workflow you described.  That VE is the one you submitted but my comment is for internal viewing only.  Do feel free to add your own comment to it as well.

 

I also have a VE from about a year ago on the same subject which we've both interacted with: VE-104236. I'll leave another comment there if that helps at all.

 

Would there be any use in me connecting directly with whomever the person would be that would be addressing this, so I could do a brief Zoom screen share with them to demonstrate exactly how Perimeter mapping was used and how the current mapping options fail to replicate that behavior? That way there could be a back-and-forth conversation to make sure we mutually understand each other regarding the requirements and challenges of re-implementing this (from both perspectives). Leaving VE comments often feels like talking to a wall...

I don't know who that person would be for this topic, but I'd be happy to connect with them.

 

(Frankly I wish this were more a more common interaction approach between Beta users and the engineers, if it can be done in such a way as to not be a nuisance to y'all).

[Matt Panzer]

15 minutes ago, Kevin Allen said:

links would always be great 

 

Aside from Vectorworks employees, I believe only the person that submitted the VE (or VB) can view it.  So, a link would not help much here.  Unless I'm wrong and others can somehow see it.

[Tom W.]

35 minutes ago, MGuilfoile said:

It seems like perimeter mapping is no longer one of the options when mapping textures in VW2023. If this is true, it MUST be brought back. What in the world were you VW folk thinking? In my experience, it is the most useful of all the Map Types.

 

In fact you have to go back to VW2021 to find it. See:

 

A enhancement request was created in April 2023 but not sure what the response has been so far. @Matt Panzer do you know anything? I agree it should be brought back!

[Matt Panzer]

I see no movement on this but gave the VE (VE-104236) a nudge and will raise the concern to others.

[Andy Broomell]

Indeed Perimeter mapping needs to be brought back asap. 

Texturing a photo backing on a curved track used to take moments. Now it can take up to 20 minutes just to get the elements of the image aligned across the surfaces.
 

And it’s impossible to slide the texture along the curved surface which used to be a breeze. 

 

Why remove a useful feature?

[Tom W.]

2 hours ago, Andy Broomell said:

Indeed Perimeter mapping needs to be brought back asap. 

Texturing a photo backing on a curved track used to take moments. Now it can take up to 20 minutes just to get the elements of the image aligned across the surfaces.
 

And it’s impossible to slide the texture along the curved surface which used to be a breeze. 

 

Why remove a useful feature?

 

I have been exporting files back to VW2021, doing the texture mapping there, then reopening it in the current version. The perimeter mapping is imported along with the object. Just don't touch the mapping settings or you'll lose it again!

[Elite Exhibits]

23 hours ago, MGuilfoile said:

What in the world were you VW folk thinking?

 

Hmmmmmmm...

     ¿ have I seen this comment before ?

 

 

Peter

[MGuilfoile]

I jumped over to my Mac which is running VW2024 and Perimeter seems to be back. I'm generally on a Windows VW2023 machine, so that might be a reason to upgrade to '24 unless SP8 includes the Perimeter mapping option.

[MGuilfoile]

Scratch my last comment.

 

When I opened a new VW2024 file on my Mac Perimeter was there, but then it vanished! It was there and then it was gone. This is a BIG problem that needs to be addressed today. We can't have tools that randomly appear and disappear.

MH Brown

[Kevin Allen]

On 1/26/2024 at 12:44 AM, Tom W. said:

I have been exporting files back to VW2021, doing the texture mapping there, then reopening it in the current version. The perimeter mapping is imported along with the object. Just don't touch the mapping settings or you'll lose it again!

well that is just insane. it works, but the need for the work around is insane

[Matt Panzer]

On 1/28/2024 at 1:57 AM, Kevin Allen said:

On 1/26/2024 at 12:44 PM, Tom W. said:

I have been exporting files back to VW2021, doing the texture mapping there, then reopening it in the current version. The perimeter mapping is imported along with the object. Just don't touch the mapping settings or you'll lose it again!

well that is just insane. it works, but the need for the work around is insane

 

Agreed.

 

I did find out that perimeter mapping was removed when per-face texturing was introduced because they did not play well together.  However, we are looking into possibilities of bring the functionality (or an equivalent) back.

[MGuilfoile]

Funny you should mention the Per-Face mapping tool. On another thread, I'm trying to figure out why my per-face tool (Windows 10, VW2023 SP7) does not always work. It works sometimes, but mostly it places the texture on every face. It is not a useful tool for me at all, so I'd really prefer the Perimeter mapping option back. On my MacBook Pro, running VW2024 it works fine. I've not had any useful feedback on why this is not working (updating to SP8 was suggested, but I don't see a specific reason why that would help.) Does this Per-Face tool work for all of you?

MH Brown

[Elite Exhibits]

12 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:

perimeter mapping was removed when per-face texturing was introduced

 

@Matt Panzer My first take on Per Face Texture Mapping was to delete the tool from the work space. It appear to do things automatically (?) where none were desired. (A common faux pas: VW adds a feature, vs introduces a feature) Tech Support was limited on how to NOT have the Per Face kick in. Initially it only served to create more work.

 

Fast forward and a few NON VW videos have clued me in to what the possibilities are with Per Face Texture Mapping.

 

The point is ... VW may not need to bring back Perimeter Mapping - what would help is a take on This was the way to do it  (Perimeter) / Here is how VW made it better (Per Face).  

         (...and don't sugar coat it )

 

Peter

 

 

[Tom W.]

As far as I'm concerned, Perimeter Mapping + per face mapping (i.e the Texture Tool) are two completely separate things + both should be available.

[Andy Broomell]

22 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

As far as I'm concerned, Perimeter Mapping + per face mapping (i.e the Texture Tool) are two completely separate things + both should be available.

 

Exactly.

 

To think through it one step further, Perimeter mapping only really makes sense for the "Overall" part and wouldn't really be applicable to per-face texturing anyways. So perimeter mapping doesn't need to play well with per-face texturing, at least not directly. Let the Texture tool only apply other mapping types, but keep Perimeter available for the "Overall" mapping types (and presumably only for the object types that used to support it, eg. Extrudes).

[Tom W.]

and Sweeps

[Andy Broomell]

It's impossible to overemphasize how crucial this specific texture mapping option is for creating and visualizing backings for TV & Film. There's literally no other way to do it effectively, and the fact that existing functionality was removed is quite distressing. We've been flailing without it now for ~14 releases since its removal... Perimeter Mapping needs to be reinstated for Extrudes asap.

 

 

 

@Matt Panzer - Have you heard of any internal traction on bringing back Perimeter mapping?

[Matt Panzer]

3 hours ago, Andy Broomell said:

It's impossible to overemphasize how crucial this specific texture mapping option is for creating and visualizing backings for TV & Film. There's literally no other way to do it effectively, and the fact that existing functionality was removed is quite distressing. We've been flailing without it now for ~14 releases since its removal... Perimeter Mapping needs to be reinstated for Extrudes asap.

 

 

 

@Matt Panzer - Have you heard of any internal traction on bringing back Perimeter mapping?

 

I do not see any movement on this but did add a comment to the VE (VE-104236) asking them about the possibilities of addressing this serious regression in the workflow you described.  That VE is the one you submitted but my comment is for internal viewing only.  Do feel free to add your own comment to it as well.

[Kevin Allen]

8 minutes ago, Matt Panzer said:

(VE-103483)

links would always be great 

[Matt Panzer]

13 minutes ago, Andy Broomell said:

 

I also have a VE from about a year ago on the same subject which we've both interacted with: VE-104236. I'll leave another comment there if that helps at all.

 

Would there be any use in me connecting directly with whomever the person would be that would be addressing this, so I could do a brief Zoom screen share with them to demonstrate exactly how Perimeter mapping was used and how the current mapping options fail to replicate that behavior? That way there could be a back-and-forth conversation to make sure we mutually understand each other regarding the requirements and challenges of re-implementing this (from both perspectives). Leaving VE comments often feels like talking to a wall...

I don't know who that person would be for this topic, but I'd be happy to connect with them.

 

(Frankly I wish this were more a more common interaction approach between Beta users and the engineers, if it can be done in such a way as to not be a nuisance to y'all).

 

Whoops!  I pasted the wrong VE #.  I actually commented on the one you mentioned (VE-104236).

Thanks for adding that comment.

 

BTW: Our upcoming Open House might be a good opportunity to bring this up with the rendering folks! 🙂