I'm very new to UV wrapping/unwrapping. However, I do understand the concept. I am trying to create a template to create the image I wish to apply to curved surface on one side of a single object.
However, each time I true to use the Smart UV I get distorted results. I selected faces on the same side of a single curved surface but the UV wrap is more narrow than the object itself. I would expect the opposite.
Thanks!
UV Editor shows visual representation of UV islands mapped to particular image aspect ratio. Since you don't have any image, by default, its mapped to 1:1 ratio. Here I have same object UV islands shown on 3 different images and 3 different aspect ratios 512x512(1:1), 512x1024(1:2) and 1024x512(2:1). Same UV islands look too different on different images.
UV islands on diferent images
Related
I have a camera at a known fixed location and orientation.
I also have a plane at a known location whose z position changes.
I want to turn the image from the camera into a top down view of the plane.
I can do this without knowing any positions by using the 4 points of the plane for a homography matrix and warping the image but each time the plane moves in Z I have to repeat this process.
After searching around online most methods seem to center on finding features of the image (using SIFT or something like it) then computing a homography matrix.
With the problem so constrained I thought there may be a simple linear algebra based approach.
I am trying to uv map a cube in blender 2.74, but even though all six faces are placed on the image on the left hand side, only two of them actually show on the cube on the right hand side. I have tried unwrapping in different ways and moving the squares on the left hand side around, but still only two sides show the image.
When I try more complicated shapes (a tree), none of the faces show the texture, no matter how I unwrap.
However, when I export as a .obj file and draw it with opengl, all sides are textured, with the texture coordinates in the places where I uv mapped them to.
So my problem is that I don't know what it is going to look like until I actually export the file.
How do I get all faces of an object to show textured as I do the mapping?
simple solution, duplicate a couple of those light sources(the dashed line outlined black sphere that always appears in the cube startup program), and place them around your object. Also switch between shading options.
I'm attempting to calculate vertex normals for various game assets. The normals I calculate are used for "inflating" the model (to draw behind the real model producing a thick outline).
I currently compute the normal for each face and average all of them (several other questions on Stack Overflow suggest this approach). However, this doesn't work for sharp corners like this one (adjacent faces' normals marked in orange, the normal I'm trying to calculate is outlined in green).
The object looks like a small pedestal and we're looking at the front-left corner. There are three adjoining faces (the bottom face isn't visible; its normal points straight down).
Blender computes an excellent normal that lies squarely in the middle of the three faces' normals; it seems like it somehow calculates a normal that has minimum rotation to each of the three face normals. Blender's normal also doesn't change when the quads are triangulated differently.
Averaging the faces' normals gives me a different normal that points slightly upward in the Z-axis (-0.45, -0.89, +0.08). Inflating my model this way doesn't produce a good outline because the bottom face of the outline is shifted up and doesn't enclose the original model.
I attempted to look at the Blender source code but couldn't find what I was looking for. If anyone can point me to the algorithm in the Blender source, I'd accept that also.
Weight the surface normals by the angle of the faces where they join. It is a common practice in surface rendering (see discussion here: http://www.bytehazard.com/code/vertnorm.html), and will ensure that your bottom face is weighted stronger than the two slanted side faces. I don't know if Blender does it differently, but you should give it a try.
I want to display mesh models in OpenGL ES 2.0, where it clearly shows the actual mesh, so I don't want smooth shading across each primitive/triangle. The only two options I can think about are
Each triangle has its own set of normals, all perpendicular to the triangles surface (but then I guess I can't share vertices among the triangles with this option)
Indicate triangle/primitive edges using black lines and stick to the normal way with shared vertices and one normal for each vertex
Does it have to be like this? Why can't I simply read in primitives and don't specify any normals and somehow let OpenGL ES 2.0 make a flat shade on each face?
Similar question Similar Stackoverflow question, but no suggestion to solution
Because in order to have shading on your mesh (any, smooth or flat), you need a lighting model, and OpenGL ES can't guess it. There is no fixed pipeline in GL ES 2 so you can't use any built-in function that will do the job for you (using a built-in lighting model).
In flat shading, the whole triangle will be drawn with the same color, computed from the angle between its normal and the light source (Yes, you also need a light source, which could simply be the origin of the perspective view). This is why you need at least one normal per triangle.
Then, a GPU works in a very parallelized way, processing several vertices (and then fragments) at the same time. To be efficient, it can't share data among vertices. This is why you need to replicate normals for each vertex.
Also, your mesh can't share vertices among triangles anymore as you said, because they share only the vertex position, not the vertex normal. So you need to put 3 * NbTriangles vertices in you buffer, each one having one position and one normal. You can't either have the benefit of using triangle strips/fans, because none of your faces will have a common vertex with another one (because, again, different normals).
I'm creating heightmaps using Fractal Brownian Motion. I'm then coloring it based on the heights and mapping it to a sphere. My problem is that the heightmap doesn't wrap seamlessly. I've used the Diamond Square algorithm and it's pretty easy to make things seamless using it, but I can't seem to figure out how to do it with fBm and I seem to be having trouble finding an explanation for it on the web.
To clarify, by "seamless", I mean that when I map it to a sphere, it creates a seamless map on the sphere.
Instead of calculating the heightmap per pixel on the heightmap, calculate the heightmap in 3D space based on each point on the sphere and then map that to an image pixel. You're going to have trouble wrapping a 2D, rectangular heightmap like that onto a sphere without getting ugly results at the poles unless you start your calculations from the sphere.
fBM generalizes to 3 dimensions, so given a point on the sphere you can get the height at that point, and then you can do the math to map that value to where it should be stored in the heightmap image.
Or you could use one of the traditional map projections. A cylindrical projection (x, y)->(x, sin y) would give you a seam of just one meridian, which you could rotate to the back. Or you could "antialias" the edge by one or another means.
With a stereographic projection (x,y,z)->(x/(z+1),y/(z+1)), there's only one sour point (the projection point itself).