Attach UV coords to VW object (Jim)

[barkest]

Hi Jim,

If I take a 1m cube from VW and then uv map and texture it in an external package and then bring it back into VW it all works fine, including scaling which auto rescales the uv map coords. I use .obj into VW. See attached.

The map type is imported but clearly VW knows about the coords as it is able to rescale and still apply the map correctly.

How possible is it to have the 1m cube already existing in VW and then just having a new map type 'imported' where you can apply the external UV texture map?

It seems to me that most of the functionality is already in place so if it is possible then it 'could' be a relatively easy change?

thank you

[PVA - Admin]

I'm not sure, we effectively do this when we import SKP and OBJ files now, the resulting imported mesh has a special mapping type called "Imported" and this is effectively the UV mapped texture brought in from the other application. However, I am unclear on the level of difficulty involved in simply importing an object where mapping has already been applied to it, and integrating a solution that allows users to apply their own maps created externally.

[barkest]

I would have thought that if the objects are the same - 1m cube obj = 1m cube VW then it could be possible?

[barkest]

I should say that if I can use an object in VW rather than an imported mesh then VW performance is better and I am only working with VW which makes life much simpler. I can then use the subdivision tool and have a texture map and its all VW

[PVA - Admin]

I don't doubt the possibility, just the work needed to add a ui to control it, I simply don't understand how the guts of it work, is what I mean. A cube would be the simplest example but for UV mapping you want the ability to map to strange and abnormal geometry as well, which currently there is no UI for.

[barkest]

Not sure you would need a UI just another map option 'imported'.

The .obj holds the uv map coords so on import you have the option to keep the .obj or transfer the uv coords to existing object (hope that makes sense). So you just need to be able to access the coords information and put them agains the same VW object.

[barkest]

btw if anyone wants the crate texture for the crate above here it is.

You can retexture as necessary using the .jpg and it will work without any issues furthermore you can resize in VW and it will work - do not edit the mesh or the coords will be lost.

[PVA - Admin]

OH well yes, if youre just importing an OBJ then yeah, the UV mapping done on it in another application would be preserved. I was talking about geometry that only existed within Vectorworks getting a texture applied to it that was created in another application and then imported into Vectorworks. I may have misunderstood your question.

[barkest]

You've got it now.

I was looking at a super simple solution.

Create object in VW (any complexity), export and texture, bring in texture map and auto apply to existing vw object

[barkest]

ah just re-read and I think you are saying what I am asking for is not viable

[PVA - Admin]

The application of the UV mapped texture would be the trick, currently I think the problem you would hit would be the limitation of the Attribute Mapping tool to apply irregular textures to irregular figures. For instance, "true" UV mapping would have UI that could handle this:

[img:center]https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=13209&filename=KilaPart03_30.jpg[/img]

[barkest]

I was a quick question. I will continue with my current solution which works fine albeit I have to bring in a mesh which I would have like to avoid.

Thanks for the answers

[zoomer]

To try to understand ...

At the beginning of VW 2014 I also had problems with not getting Objects textured

correctly. But at that time I was working in a file with meshes only.

For me, when using Solids and Arch Elements, VW Texturing works 99% well now.

For difficult situations there is Attribute Mapping Tool.

So far as I understand the only Problem with UVW in VW are Meshes.

And therefore with SubD's too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it sufficient to sort out the texturing problems

related to Meshes only in VW before developing a complicated UV Mapping

System ?

[barkest]

I believe that reassigning coords would be far less work than creating a new ui

[Dave Donley]

Yes the issue is only with meshes. Subdivision objects are implemented as meshes which is why they have limited mapping options. But, you can convert a subdivision object to nurbs or generic solid and have better flow to the texturing from the perimeter mapping type.

To have UV mapping you would need to unfold arbitrary meshes in VW like for gaming-type modeling packages. Assuming you couldn't model it using our native geometry objects, which already have mapping control.

[zoomer]

As Meshes in VW currently have a revival because of Subdivisions ....

Would it be possible to treat Mesh Objects in VW visually/graphical as Solids

in any way ?

Because of Import I had to work in a file completely with Meshes only,

and I found them quite cool to work with !

It is just for Meshes that :

1.

I wished to have a locked Sub Edit Mode to not accidentally modify

vertices of other non selected Mesh objects near.

2.

And that I miss the nice red cutting faces in Clip Cube and Sections*

(*wich is now (2016) possible for stairs, even no solids also)

3.

The Perimeter Mapping not working for Meshes

But I could easily convert them to Generic Solids when needed.

(As long as their geometry is ok and there are no holes)

Or would that be too expensive/complex/time consuming ?

[Dave Donley]

Mesh types are the most flexible but also the least reliable, as far as trying to use them for solids operations. Really the user can manipulate them until they are not well-behaved at all. They do not start out as a well-behaved solid so that info has to be determined afterwards, which is not easy. It's like the least common denominator object type.

Clip cube caps for example do not show on meshes because we cannot easily know if they are closed properly or not. Other objects like extrudes and solids are reliable that way so we show caps on them.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Dave Donley

[zoomer]

OK.

Regarding 2016 Stairs which work in Sections now, but parts not in Clip Cubes,

that they are no Solids doesn't need to mean they will be Meshes (?)

[PVA - Admin]

OK.

Regarding 2016 Stairs which work in Sections now, but parts not in Clip Cubes,

that they are no Solids doesn't need to mean they will be Meshes (?)

Apologies, I do not understand your question.

[rDesign]

Yes the issue is only with meshes. Subdivision objects are implemented as meshes which is why they have limited mapping options. But, you can convert a subdivision object to nurbs or generic solid and have better flow to the texturing from the perimeter mapping type.

Texturing issues in Vw are not limited only to meshes. From my wishlist request here's a list of objects that are currently hamstrung by the lack of UV textures:

• Subdivision Objects
  
• Cabinet PIO
  
• Door PIO
  
• 3D plants with textures can't be scaled
  
• Framing Objects
  
• Meshes
  
• NURBS Surfaces (e.g. Drape Surface)

Try texturing this simple solid wood cube (see attached image) in Vw without first extracting all the faces as separate NURBS surfaces. SketchUp can easily do this while allowing it to stay a manifold solid 3D object, not a non-manifold group of NURBS surfaces.

Same problem for wood Framing Members and anything else for which you want a wood grain. If you want to show an end grain on a Framing member, you have to first break the object's functionality and extract all the faces.

In another thread on this topic, JimW said that he expected per-face texturing should be possible in Vw, but it hasn't happened yet, and this issue has been around for over 10 years.

NURBS surfaces already have UV coordinates as part of their geometric makeup, so is there a good reason why we can't access their UV coordinates for texturing purposes?

The OpenGL spec uses texture coordinates (labeled as ST coordinates) and even has a section in the programming guide titled Automatic Texture-Coordinate Generation : OpenGL Programming Guide.

So if OpenGL is already using texture coordinates, why can't those ST texture coordinates be repurposed by Renderworks for use as a 'UV Texture' tag?

To have UV mapping you would need to unfold arbitrary meshes in VW like for gaming-type modeling packages. Assuming you couldn't model it using our native geometry objects, which already have mapping control.

I feel like there has been a misperception put forth by Vectorworks, Inc. that UV texturing requires a graphic UI for mesh unfolding. I certainly could be wrong, but I disagree and do not think it is required. Yes, dedicated 3D modeling software packages do have complicated UV mesh unfolding, but competing BIM packages do not.

Revit, ArchiCad and SketchUp all have UV texturing without requiring any complicated UI mesh unfolding.

How did they do it? Magic beans?

So no, texturing issues in Vw are not limited only to meshes...

[zoomer]

Apologies, I do not understand your question.

Maybe I am completely wrong.

I thought that some parts of Stairs did not show closed in Sections.

When I tested lately, The Stairs looked good in Sections.

So I thought this would be a 2016 improvement ?

Maybe I mix something up with my experiences when Exporting Stair geometry ?

BTW,

the geometry created by Escalator Tools doesn't look so un-holy too,

even in OpenGL

[PVA - Admin]

The reasons behind stairs and meshes having issues in sections or in Clip Cube are not related, no.

[zoomer]

I think I understood Tim's point.

I re-read a post on the german forum where they say that Stairs use

a mix of 3D Polygons and Meshes.

The reason why no Solids would be that Solids can't have multiple Materials.

That may be one of the reasons why none of the parametric tools seem to

create Solids.

I personally would prefer Solids Geometry over multiple Materials per Stair Part.

Although, that example Cube is a little more Render/Mapping performance

I would expect from a CAD App. And I think it needs more work to set up than

most of the VW users want spend on their Visualization work.

I think it is ok to switch to a Visualization Packages for those who need that

quality.

And of course no problem with such features if they can be realized with a little

trick without large developments efforts.

BTW

Wouldn't that cube Example work with an Extrude that you rotate on its side

so you can assign a Top/Bottom Cut/Front Wood Texture + a suitable Board Texture

to the 4 Sides ?