#3ds Mapping Plug-in
10 messages in this thread
Question for the 3D Studio forum.
Mapping Plug-in for 3D Studio.
We use 3D Studio to produce animation and visualisation for
architects and other design based professions. 3D Studio performs
wonderfully, however it is at times a little arduous to use. We often
receive geometry from our clients in the form of DXF files. These
models are created using a variety of CAD packages, AutoCAD,
ArchiCAD and Microstation being the most common. Having
imported a DXF into 3D Studio one encounters the time consuming
task of mapping and texturing the surfaces of the model. This
involves grouping the similar surfaces together and then sorting
them into objects according to the surface normal angle of the
constituent faces. This seems like a function that the computer could
perform for us. In fact another commercially available rendering
package has the ability to do something along these lines. It offers 3
types of mapping similar to these available in the 3D Studio editor,
namely: Cylindrical; Spherical and Planar. However it has 2 other
mapping types, TILED and FOLDED, that are extremely useful.
TILED WRAP:
Applies mapping coordinates to an object such that the image map
is not sheared or distorted. This is acheived by each face, or set of
faces that have parallel normals, being automatically mapped
perpendicular to its normal. The image map is continuous on faces
that share the same normal and is repeated from the starting point
for each set of parallel faces. In other words the mapping plane is
reset so as to be parallel to each of the faces to which is is mapped.
UNFOLDED WRAP:
Wraps an image onto each of the faces of the object such that the
image is not sheared or distorted during application, and the image
continues over each face of the object. This method is similar to
using wrapping paper to cover the object, if the paper could be
contoured to each of the facets of the object. Each face in the object
is mapped perpendicular to its normal, and the mapping plane is
reset such that it is parallel to each of the faces on which it is
mapped.
Does a 3D Studio Plug-in exist that would allow us to generate
mapping coordinates in a fashion similar to the above descriptions?
I imagine the Plug-in would function within the 3D editor. Any
information regarding this would be much appreciated.
Regards
Anthony Buntine
Animated Design Pty Ltd
Melb. Vic
Australia
<<UNFOLDED WRAP:MAPPING
<<Does a 3D Studio Plug-in exist that would allow us to generate
mapping coordinates in a fashion similar to the above descriptions?
This is one of my major hopes for the next version. It would boost the utility
of the already indespensible (to me ) Meshpaint. I would buy an IPAS like this
in a minute.
Ed
Ed,
I have forwarded the original requests to our programmer for consideration. I
would suspect that it may not be possible without modifications to the 3DS
renderer, but I could be mistaken.
I'll reoprt back soon.
Brent
Thanks Brent
I think this is one of the features that will put 3ds up there with the SGI
apps
Ed
>>I have forwarded the original requests to our programmer for consideration. I
would suspect that it may not be possible without modifications to the 3DS
renderer, but I could be mistaken.
Modifications to the 3DS renderer…?!? It wouldn't need that at all! A
routine like this would do ALL its work in the phase of applying mapping
coordinates and materials. Think about it. All the work this IPAS would do is
work you already perform manually in the 3D editor anyways. You need to
detatch certain faces, adjust the mapping icon, apply the map to the object
made from the detached faces, apply your material, and re-attatch the faces.
The IPAS could do all this automatically, and wouldn't need to even bother with
the renderer. The beauty of such a routine is that once it does its work, is
you can STILL go in and manually edit certain faces or materials that the IPAS
didn't automatically do to your liking. The important function of such an IPAS
is that it would automate the routine work for you that could be specified in
the IPAS parameters. This would save people like me HOURS of time in mesh
creation.
Certainly, there are many other feattures that could be added to such a
routine. This is just a necessary beginning. Another important thing to
consider: You would want to have a certain feature that would allow for the
mapping to keep a certain axis parallel to a certain plane, while only pivoting
around other axes. This is for materials like brick that you would want to
keep the courses perpendicular to the ground. This would be quintessential to
architectural applications. As I have considered the creation of such an IPAS,
feel free to contact me for certain ideas about the parameters of such a
routine. if you could get out such a routine soon enough (thus long enough
BEFORE the release of R5), I guarantee you you would sell a ton of them.
It's a simple routine to write, if just someone familiar with IPAS would bother
to write it.
Good luck!
The things about mapping that you mentioned are definitely problems. I
really wish that there were a way to fix them, but due to a variety of
problems, a universal "perfect" mapping plug-in just isn't possible.
Inside 3D Studio, mapping coordinates are stored at the vertices. What this
means is that every face in the object shares a location on the texture map
with its neighbor. This is probably the biggest problem with the current
mapping scheme. Some (most) objects are basically impossible to map without
some mapping artifacts.
It would seem that a good solution would be to allow every face to have its
own mapping coordinates at the vertices, so every face can be independent of
the other faces. In fact, it would be possible to work this. The problem is,
if every face is given its own section on the map, it gets very difficult to
edit texture maps in a 2D package. 3D paint packages would work great with
this solution (given a few extra tweeks), but the resulting map file would be
almost useless in 2D paint packages. This doesn't even begin to get into the
filtering problems the renderer would face.
Probably the best compromise is to allow texture "strips". This is similar to
the above idea, but instead allocates a rectangular region in the texture map
to a set of polygons on the object. It is much more difficult to solve
distortion problems with this method, but it is probably the best compromise
for now.
So what's the final word? None of the above solutions can be implemented in
R4, at least not directly. It is possible to do something similar to the
strips solution, however. Just dice your object up and and apply the best
mapping method to each segment. It's a painful way of applying mapping, but
the results can look great! If anyone knows a better way, I would love to hear
it.
Hope this clears some things up,
J.J.
<<UNFOLDED WRAP:MAPPING
I have simialar whishes, but would like to share some experience. I Made an
animation with 3DS for a milk producer. In The Netherlands they sell milk in
folded plastified paper. I wanted the pack of milk to jump around. First I
created a box and added vertices to create the triangular folded top. The
scanned image of the unfolded pack appeared in different orientations at about
every face! After many try outs the best thing was to create a box with enough
sections through the lofter. Then before assigning mapping coordinates I first
moved the vertices to their verticle positions on the box in such a way that
the triangles that would appear after folding allready were there. Since I
wanted the scan to fit exactly I choose for 'decale' in the material editor.
But this gave a wrong offset. 'Tile' worked fine. It is perfect know… Then I
wanted to morph the pack into a cylindrical object. Here I still have problems.
Since the morph object uses its own geometry for mapping, the morphed bitmap of
the cylindrical object after the morph on many faces has a wrong orientation.
I would realy appriciate if someone can indicate a solution.
>> The things about mapping that you mentioned are definitely problems. I
really wish that there were a way to fix them, but due to a variety of
problems, a universal "perfect" mapping plug-in just isn't possible.
True – but, then, just because you can't achieve perfection under the current
scheme doesn't mean there can't be a routine that would save us HOURS in
applying mapping corrdinates
You see, since we're faced with the current scheme, we manually apply
coordinates as we need them. What I would like to see BEFORE they improve the
current system is to automate what I already have to do manually. Imporving the
effeciency and quality of the current mapping system is certainly something to
strive for, but why not make working with the current one easier and take far
less time? We already have to do it this way, why not have the computer do
some of it for us?
>> So what's the final word? None of the above solutions can be implemented in
R4, at least not directly. It is possible to do something similar to the
strips solution, however. Just dice your object up and and apply the best
mapping method to each segment. It's a painful way of applying mapping, but
the results can look great! If anyone knows a better way, I would love to hear
it.
Again, as I said, why not still apply the mapping inn the same old way as we've
BEEN doing it in R4, just have the computer automate the process somewhat?
That might not improve the actual mapping above what we have, but, indeed, it
would save us HOURS.
As I've stated before, this would be an EASY routine to write, and is
absolutely possible. While what you're talking about would indeed imporve the
final product, why not save us hours on doing what we've been doing manually?
>> Having imported a DXF into
3D Studio one encounters the time consuming task of mapping and texturing the
surfaces of the model. This involves grouping the similar surfaces together and
then sorting them into objects according to the surface normal angle of the
constituent faces. This seems like a function that the computer could perform
for us.
Here, here!!!!!!
I have personally been championing this very cause, as I find it to be perhaps
the greatest weakness for architectural animations in an otherwise wonderful
product. I find that often the mapping takes even longer than the creation of
the model, and heaven help you if you change any of the geometries and have to
re-apply mapping coordinates.
As you pointed out, it's a simple matter for the computer to automate this
process, and save the user HOURS of time. I have conceived of such an IPAS or
routine to be included in the general 3DS interface for some time now. Indeed,
if I were more familiar with IPAS development, I'd write one myself. I was
even considering doing just that until the announcement of R5. I certainly
would hate to write a routine that would possibly be included in R5's
capabilities, and at the very least wouldn't be portable to the NT platform.
I would certainly hope that YG will have corrected this shortcoming in R5, as
they seem to be doing a wonderful job advancing 3DS so far. I just think it
would be a shame to have to wait until the release of R5 to get this feature
which is CRUCIAL to time-saving for architectural and similar meshes. I would
buy such an IPAS in a heartbeat, and know several others who would, as well.
(are you listening, YG? <g>)
We're always listening.
– G