Pedro, Any chance to trying this? Already have my sphere with correct uvs but yours looks nicer ;)
F. 2016-05-17 11:36 GMT-03:00 pedro santos <probi...@gmail.com>: > Matt at that particular point I'm using "Random Seed" input to randomize > the UV location, hence that happening. So what you're saying it's not > something that is wrongly set and what I show in there wouldn't help, since > it's a viewport problem? > > Cheers > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Matt Lind <speye...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Implicit simply means the texture is projected without explicitly defined >> UV >> coordinates per polygon. Like using a slide projector to project the >> image >> onto a surface. That's why it's confined to the basic texture projection >> types as the method to project the image onto the surface needs to be >> defined as an algorithm. The advantage is polygon surfaces can get more >> granular/precise placement of texels because normally they rely on normals >> and UVs defined at the vertices and interpolated across the polygon for >> placement which gets less accurate the larger the polygon is relative to >> the >> texture space coverage. That is independent of an equirectangular >> projection mapping method which Softimage does not have by default (other >> than spherical mapping). >> >> I don't think it's strictly a mental ray feature, but even if it were, any >> surface attribute produced by mental ray can be captured using >> rendermap/ultimapper/lightmapper and exported where needed. You may be >> able >> to build your own projection using ICE, but a mental ray shader would >> produce better results as it has the advantage of the subsampling and >> interpolation methods available in the renderer which are significantly >> higher quality and more granular than anything ICE has access to. >> Developing a shader would also be easier. >> >> I conducted an experiment by applying Catmull-Clark subdivision smoothing >> to >> a cube, applying a spherical texture projection, then rendermapping the >> result. After that, I created my own spherical mapping shader in the >> rendertree using the available nodes, applied it to the cube, then >> rendermapped that too. Comparing the results side by side revealed some >> broken internals of Softimage. >> >> As it turns out, the default spherical mapping as seen in the viewports is >> all F****d up, but if you rendermap that projection, the resulting image >> will be perfectly clean without distortion at the poles. Conversely, my >> self-devised spherical shader built in the rendertree looked perfect in >> the >> viewports/render region, but rendermap captured distortion at the poles >> equivalent to what you see in the viewports with the default spherical >> projection. Apparently the viewports and rendermap use different >> algorithms >> for the same work. >> >> Getting back to the original question - the fact you see garbage at the >> poles of the sphere in the Softimage viewports should be of no concern >> because it's isolated to the viewports and should not transfer to Unity or >> whatever engine you're exporting your stuff. Equirectangular projections >> created with Rendermap will come out clean. >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 17:33:32 +0200 >> From: "Sven Constable" <sixsi_l...@imagefront.de> >> Subject: RE: equirectangular uv >> To: <softimage@listproc.autodesk.com> >> >> To fix distortion on the poles, XSI has a special mapping feature called >> 'implicit' (Clusters/?Texture Projection Def), but this is actually a >> mental >> ray feature and doesn't deal with UVs at all. So when exporting meshes you >> cannot use it, I think. I'm not familiar with Unity unfortunatly, maybe >> there is a similar feature for spherical projections not using UVs but >> instead a special projection method (perfect spherical) ? >> >> Otherwise, since a sphere always has poles/singularities you will get >> distortions on them. Workaround could get rid of the poles by deleting the >> inmost polygons on each pole, duplicating the resulting (open) edge loop, >> and scale it to zero. Resulting in many point on the same spot. Then >> relaxing them in the texture editor. Results could be ok, not sure. Maybe >> I'm overcomplicating it. Matt Lind needs to chime in :) >> >> Can't you use cubic mapping? That should avoid the problem in the first >> place. >> >> sven >> >> ------ >> Softimage Mailing List. >> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com >> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. >> > > > > -- > > > > *------------------------------[image: > http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s202/animatics/probiner-sig.gif]Pedro > Alpiarça dos Santos >> http://probiner.xyz/ <http://probiner.xyz/> > <http://probiner.x10.mx/>* > > ------ > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. > --
------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
![http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s202/animatics/probiner-sig.gif]Pedro](http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s202/animatics/probiner-sig.gif]Pedro){kind=link}