I would very much appreciate it if MED had the option, upon creating a 6-sided UV map, to set the texture scale. That is, if I wanted 0.25 as the texture scale, there would be exactly 4 pixels per quant at the texture scale. At the moment, the only way I can do this is to punch lots of numbers into calculator. The scale tool is very inaccurate and frequently causes texture misalignments, and, for LOD, causes textures to suddenly "shift" unexpectedly when the switch of LOD stages occurs.

To explain how it works, let's say you have this as the model in the top view:

Code:

---

(0, 0)                    (26, 0)
   +-------------------------+
   |                           \
   |                             \
   |                               \
   |                                 \
   |                                   \
   |                                     \
   +---------------------------------------
(0, 14)                                (40, 14)

---

Currently, when the UV map is created, the shape is lost and gets distorted and otherwise fills the entire texture area messing things up. For a 128x128 texture, it would get laid out like this:

Code:

---

(0, 0)              (83.2, 0)
   +--------------------+
   |                    |
   |                     \
   |                      |
   |                      |
   |                       \
   |                        |
   |                        |
   |                         \
   |                          |
   |                          |
   |                           \
   |                            |
   |                             |
   |                             |
   |                              \
   +--------------------------------
(0, 128)                         (128x128)

---

Note that it otherwise loses its shape as well causing texels to get stretched excessively and that there's an odd fractional value. This is how MED currently does it. If I could set a texture scale for UV map creations in MED, it would not only look nicer without these odd stretches, but everything will line up perfectly, provided the same texture scale is used.

It also is more friendly with tiling model textures as well. Think of a large MDL terrain covering about 3000x2000 quants with 1000 vertices and 1800 faces. For a 128x128 texture, the texture pixels would normally end up being very large and awkwardly stretched because MED's current design is bad. Having a texture scale would not only solve this issue, but it would also allow for more friendly tiling. If I set 0.25 as the texture scale, the UV map would span 12000x8000 pixels. All that would be needed is to just position this creation and you're done. It's faster and much more user-friendly as a result.

Please implement this important and very useful feature for the 6.5 update.

You can set any texture scale in any direction by moving the skin vertices to the desired positions, after having generated the mapping.

That doesn't work as is just as bad. I ain't going to be punching in hundreds (even thousands) of numbers into the calculator just to do what I need. I'd have to position each vertex one by one manually. It's far more convienient to have this feature. Just look at the advantages:

1. Textures are scaled with consistancy so there aren't any of varied sizes. This helps align textures for MDL terrains much better.
2. The scale tool is very inaccurate and otherwise causes textures to be misaligned for MDL terrains and for other objects and it looks weird otherwise.
3. It's far easier to use and understand. Just select the polygons to texture, the mapping type, texture scale, position, and you're done. It takes less than 30 seconds in most cases and textures are always aligned. It's a serious user interface improvement and others have requested improvements to the user interface in MED.

Besides, it's not a complex algorithm either so it should be easy to script. How it works is that the vertex on the far left of the projected UV map is taken and the vertex on the far right is taken. These values are then subtracted to find the full range. The same goes for the furthest up and furthest down. Once the range of the entire area is established, the values for each vertex is then multiplied by the texture scale, of which is set in the UV creation dialog, then projected onto the skin map area from these calculations. There's not much to it so it shouldn't be difficult to do. Please implement this into the next update's MED. I really need it. I'd even pay $25 for this as I need it a lot.

It seems like you either do not under stand how UV mapping works or don't know how to use it properly. You don't have to punch numbers into anything to get the kind of mapping you want. Trust me, no 3D program UV maps they way you are asking Conitec to make MED UV map. I suspect that none of them do because there really is not a need for this at all. Trust me on this. I UV map on almost a daily basis.

You are just not understanding. Try it. Create a model as shown above in my first post (the top one) with the same coordinates. Import a 128x128 texture and create a UV map. The UV map created is always stretched to fill the entire texture area. I do not want this and it causes odd misalignments and things. With the texture scale feature I'm requesting (and really need), this doesn't happen. In order for me to set the texture scale, so that 4 texture pixels fill each quant on a side, I have to take out calculator and punch in a bunch of numbers. For 4 vertices, this isn't much. For 2000+ vertices, and 100+ models of this type, it's overwhelming and would take even a year's worth of putting numbers into the calculator, and this doesn't take in account sleeping, eating, etc..

Look at my example and see what odd skin vertex positions are used. These are actual positions you'll get. If the texture scale was 1, the vertex in the top right corner would be at (26, 0), not (83.2, 0). With the texture scale at 0.25, of which is what I tend to use often, the same vertex would be at (104, 0), a much nicer number than (83.2, 0).

Do you need examples and things. It's such a simple system and concept, and I seriously need this feature, so much, I'm willing to pay $25 for it (up to $35 maximum), I'm that desperate for it. Without it, I have practically no motive at all to doing anything in 3D.

Maybe there's some fundamental misunderstanding.

UV mapping does not use texture coordinates at all. They just help the user to see which pixel is mapped to which vertex, but they are not used by a 3D engine. The engine just uses a floating point value in the range 0..1 to map the whole range of a texture.

So, if you have a pixel at an even position like 100.00, it won't be mapped any "better" than a pixel at an odd position like 123.45678.

Yes, I understand all that. If a square of 256x256 quants was mapped onto a texture of 128x128 and it filled the entire texture space, the texture scale would be the equivelent of 2 in WED. That is, each texture pixel on the model would cover a 2x2 quant area and would appear very course-looking. If I used a 1024x1024 texture instead, each texture pixel on the same model would cover a 0.25-quant area and would look very smooth and fine. You're the one that's not understanding.

All I'm asking for is that, when you go to create 6-sided mapping from the edit menu in MED, a texture scale option can be set. If I have a a square-shaped area of a model selected that is 48x48 quants, and if I set the texture scale on the "create 6-sided mapping" dialog to 0.5, the skin vertices placed on the texture will always be the same at 128x128 without any regard to the texture size. If I had a 256x256 texture, for example, the current behavior would place this square to cover the entire texture area and would cover the 256x256 space in full causing the texture pixels (texels) to become very fine. If I set the texture scale in this dialog option I'm requesting to 0.5, the space covered is 96x96 and would be the exact same as a block in WED who's texture is set to 0.5. It's all I'm asking for. It seriously simplifies my process.

I know how UV maps work quite well. Look at my first post in this thread and you'll see what I mean by the effects this has. Please add this requested feature, I really need it. I need it so badly, I'm willing to pay up to $35 for it.

Edit: I do know that moving vertices around doesn't affect the quality, it's how far apart they are that does matter. The texture scale merely sets how far apart to set the skin vertices compared to that of the model's vertices in the same projection (e.g. a top view mapping for the top view).

To better explain this feature, screenshots seem to be the only way I can do it so here are some screenshots to explain what I mean and what this feature is I'm after.


Full-size version

This is the sample model concept I've been depicting for a while. Note the position of the selected vertex. That's (24, -32, 0).


Full-size version

After I create the UV map using the top view and a top mapping, this is what I get before any changes. Notice how the texture is distorted and awkwardly stretched? That same vertex I selected in the above screenshot is selected here. Note position of (38.4, 64).


Full-size version

Applying what I'm suggesting and the feature I find extremely important to me with the scaling set to 1, this is the result. Note how the position of that same vertex exactly matches those of the model and that the texture isn't awkwardly stretched.


Full-size version

If I set the texture scale to 4x (WED equivelent of 0.25), this is what I'd get. The skin vertices are further apart from each other and note how the position of the vertex selected in the top screenshot is exactly 4 times that of the vertex selected in the first screenshot? This is what my feature request is all about.


Full-size version

As another example, if I set the scale to 6x (WED near-equivelent of 0.167), I'd get this. Here, with the higher scale, the vertices are even further apart making the texture on the model look even finer. Again, note the position of the vertex selected and that it's 6 times that of the vertex in the first and third screenshot.

Please implement this feature for the next update. I'd even pay you $30 for it - I need it that badly. It's a simple concept too.

Edit: wrong URL for full-size version....

Thanks for the screenshots. I still do not see a reason why you would want to go from step 2 to step 3. But there are new mapping methods planned for MED anyway, additionally to the 2- and 6-sided mapping. On that occasion we'll also implement a tile scale factor, which will basically do what you need.

Thanks for understanding. I'll look forward to this update. The case from step 2 to step 3 is to explain what happens if the scale is set to 1. It's only just as an example as a comparison to help explain the effect shown in screenshots 4 and 5. Screenshot 4 has a 4x scale and 5 has a 6x scale. In experiments, it's a good idea to establish a control, which is what screenshot 3 is for.