PDA

View Full Version : Better than Pelt mapping...


topmegacool
11-15-2005, 01:37 PM
The next version of Unfold3D (actually in beta test) looks much than promising, especially this new concept of automatic edge selection. The interface is also much more friendly and has many improvements.

Now we can manage all UV of one full character composed of sub parts, even with thousands of polygons. I found the concept very inovative because you can modify the UV seems on both 3D and unwraped meshes. :thumbsup:

While we can see all around many new pelt tools, it looks to me that Unfold3D is one step forward with its one click unwrap solution. No complex parameters to adjust... just select the edge you want to be seems and push "Unfold" to get perfect UV in a amazing short time of calculation.

Could it be more easy ?


Check these videos :

http://www.polygonal-design.fr/e_unfold/videos/unfold3d-v4-keeper.avi (19 Mb)

http://www.polygonal-design.fr/e_unfold/videos/footman.avi (58 Mb)

Screenshot :
http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84642&stc=1


Unfold3d Web site : http://unfold3d.com

mustique
11-15-2005, 02:09 PM
Unfold3d looks cool, but with rivaling pelt mapping features in other apps it better should lower its price.

DanSilverman
11-15-2005, 02:30 PM
Modo's UV Unwrap tool works this way (and I have yet to look at the videos). You use the normal edge selection to define seams and even seperate parts. You can do this for every single object and then, with a click of a button, unwrap everything. Here is a little tutorial I wrote on UV mapping a low poly character:

http://www.m3dd.com/tutorials/part1.htm

For the price of Unfold3D you can get Modo's modeling, UV mapping, rendering and 3D painting tools (with v201) :) .

manuaarts
11-15-2005, 03:02 PM
Dan, i take a look to your tutorial, (good many pictures and explanations)
Please, take a look to the Unfold 3d videos.

You cannot compare !!!

The characters used in the Unfold3d videos are more than 40000 triangles... (more than 65000 for the soccer)
And in one of them, there is only one cut on the mesh to unfold !

It is absolutly not the same level of work.

- no overlaps in unfold
- no weld to do
- the operation is done in one click (after cut made)
- many many more polygons !

When you have many unwrap to do, unfold3d is more faster, accurate, and easy to use.

digitaltoon
11-15-2005, 05:24 PM
While Modo might work similiar to this I really haven't seen anything that unfolds UV's as quickly as Unfold 3D. I think you should download the demo and fairly compare it to Modo.
I also wish the price was less.

PS-I am a Modo User

DanSilverman
11-15-2005, 05:29 PM
Dan, i take a look to your tutorial, (good many pictures and explanations)
Please, take a look to the Unfold 3d videos.

You cannot compare !!!

My tutorial does not do the Unwrap tool in Modo justice. You can simply select edges, select Unwrap and click/drag in the UV edit window and be done. Period. I chose a different method because of what I was doing.

The characters used in the Unfold3d videos are more than 40000 triangles... (more than 65000 for the soccer)
And in one of them, there is only one cut on the mesh to unfold !

The number of faces does not matter. Modo can handle it just as easily and, in fact, I think it would be faster. I watched the videos and Unfold3D took a long time to unfold each part. In Modo it is so fast that you can drag in the UV view in order to set your iterations for unfolding and, as you drag, you can watch the model unfolding. In this manner you don't have to select an iteration in advance but simply click and drag until the unfolding looks good to you.

It is absolutly not the same level of work.

Not based on my tutorial, but Modo is certainly the same level of work with a few exceptions:

1 - Unfold3D initially creates a cleaner mesh (as you said, no overlaps). I did not get any overlaps in my tutorial either, but I did the head in a different way because of the painting method I was going to use. I needed a perfectly straight edge down the middle of the face.

2 - The pack feature ... you have to do this by hand in Modo. In any case, I would rather do this by hand because I know better than the computer which parts of the model I want to have more UV space and which ones I don't. So the pack feature will only get me part of the way there.

- no overlaps in unfold

As stated above, this is one area that Unfold3D excells at, but I expect Luxology to catch up very soon ;) .

- no weld to do

You don't have to do any welding in Modo either. I did on the head because I mapped the head in a different manner because of the painting technique I was going to use for the head.

- the operation is done in one click (after cut made)

As it is in Modo and there is no waiting for the unfold to happen on each piece. It is instantaineous.

- many many more polygons !

This is just a dumb comment. My tutorial, as it states, is using a low-poly model for real-time 3D games. The reason for this is the tutorial is for those that create game content. This is no reflection on how many polygons Modo can handle. Modo can certainly unwrap models with thousands and thousands of polygons and, unlike Unfold3D, it does not take any time to go through the iterations. It is literally "click and drag" and you watch the model unfold as you drag. Very fast. Very nice.

When you have many unwrap to do, unfold3d is more faster, accurate, and easy to use.

The operation is no faster and, because of how long it takes to unwrap each part, it may even be slower. Here is the method in Unfold3D as I see it:

- Select edges to define parts and seams
- set your iterations
- Click and sit back to watch the parts unfold (this part takes a bit of time)

Here is the method in Modo:

- Select edges to define parts and seams
- Click and drag to unfold and to set your iterations (no waiting ... done)

Hmmmm ... which seems faster?

As stated before, I see no reason to pay the price for Unfold3D when, for less, I can get v201 of Modo and get similar unwrapping, a full modeler, a blazing fast and realistic renderer and a real-time 3D painting tool (and more).

DanSilverman
11-15-2005, 05:46 PM
While Modo might work similiar to this I really haven't seen anything that unfolds UV's as quickly as Unfold 3D. I think you should download the demo and fairly compare it to Modo.
I also wish the price was less.

I do not have a copy of Unfold3D, but the videos show a decent amount of waiting while the program actually unfolds the model. There is no waiting in Modo ... none. In the video they had to select edges for defining seams and separate parts. This is the same in Modo so this part would take no longer in one program than the other ... well ... it depends because Modo's edge selection tools are very strong and fast.

krisr
11-15-2005, 05:53 PM
This one looks pretty cool too:

http://www.headus.com/au/uvlayout/

digitaltoon
11-15-2005, 06:04 PM
Dan-Rather than looking at the videos you might want to download the demo..the fraternaware...

And try keeping an open mind..that's a good thing too...

DanSilverman
11-15-2005, 06:51 PM
Dan-Rather than looking at the videos you might want to download the demo..the fraternaware...

And try keeping an open mind..that's a good thing too...

For the record, despite all that I have typed here, I am not a "Modo fan-boy". I use other tools and would use Unfold3D in a heartbeat if it gave me a significant advantage over Modo's unwrap tools and if it wasn't so expensive.

The free version seems very limited, though. Only 1000 tri-polys can be unfolded and surface adjusting has been taken out. It makes it a bit hard to evaluate the tool. Not only that, but the version that topmegacool has referenced here (and that the videos are from) are for the beta version. The download version would not have the features of the beta. The current version require the mesh to be "cut" first before bringing it into Unfold3D (if I am understanding their tutorial correctly). This is more time consuming then just doing the model in Modo, selecting edges and then unwrapping. Therefore, before evaluating Unfold3D (and to compare it fairly to Modo's Unwrap) I would need to wait for the next version to be released.

Still, the price is very steep.

KolbyJukes
11-15-2005, 07:18 PM
I've beta-ed this app, it's really powerful, but as other have mentioned, the price is pretty ridiculous. I too would rather just buy modo...or for that matter, just use wings.

Phrenzy84
11-15-2005, 07:40 PM
just use wings.

amen :).

Use wings3d to try out this process. Then decide if you really need it.

JA-forreal
11-15-2005, 08:24 PM
amen :).

Use wings3d to try out this process. Then decide if you really need it.

Oh yes. But Unfold is for pumping out this kind of uv mapping work in volume. With Unfold a team of 3d artist who have a major task of uv mapping many models can work fast. The price is not bad.

For simple uv mapping without having to manually do any layout use Wings or Blenders LSCM mapping. These apps will gear you up to use Unfold.

Phrenzy84
11-15-2005, 08:34 PM
For simple uv mapping without having to manually do any layout use Wings or Blenders LSCM mapping. These apps will gear you up to use Unfold.

well i guess it depends on your definition of "simple uv mapping". I have cranked geometry through Wings3d that would take an age to uv map manually. built in gloves, accessories you name it was mapped.

I know it is a favourite here at work. Since high rez models for nextgen is a big thing, I know its an invaulable tool for many artists here. for highly detailed models.

rebo
11-15-2005, 08:34 PM
I still think the price is crazy! =].

Sonk
11-15-2005, 09:01 PM
I've beta-ed this app, it's really powerful, but as other have mentioned, the price is pretty ridiculous. I too would rather just buy modo...or for that matter, just use wings.

I dont know about Dan, but i have used the demo version of UNFOLD3d, i think its great. However i do agree with Dan on some of this Modo/UNFOLD3D comparison.

The unfold3d beta looks even better(no more unwelding edges to create seams!), but what annoys me is that even in the new version , i see distortion (the orange area, the checkers are not even) in the video. Is there a feature in the retail version that address this issue?

The price is still to high, i'd rather use Modo 201 new UV unwrap tool , plus the new interactive Relax tool , it should make for a good combo(distortion free UV).

LetterRip
11-15-2005, 09:18 PM
it would be great if we could have a uv-unwrapping comparison chart and shoot out. Showing the capabilities of different tools on realisitically complex models.

We could probably host the results at the blender wiki if there is interest. I have a page on UV mapping already there

http://mediawiki.blender.org/index.php/Competitive_Analysis/UVMapping

LetterRip

thematt
11-15-2005, 09:45 PM
looks like a great tool but the price for this is insane.. :surprised
Too bad really i would ask my company to buy it for future prod if it was diffrent, but man there is just no way they accept putting that much for a license to just unfold Uv I'd go for modo with that price no doubt..come on z brush is half the price, and next version it wil have great unfold from what I could tell !!.. I think starting between 200 &300 €would be a good start, they would apply to much more license and then with people using it talking about it, more would use it that's how it work usually.

cheers

Tripdragon
11-15-2005, 09:46 PM
everyone misses the one problem with all of these types of unfolder ... The seam edge placement of the cut.... That still needs to be smarter as well. If it takes minutes to see results then things are still kinda messy... BUT still looks awesome, someone on SILO was trying to make one of these but it is only for maya right now

JA-forreal
11-15-2005, 10:27 PM
everyone misses the one problem with all of these types of unfolder ... The seam edge placement of the cut.... That still needs to be smarter as well. If it takes minutes to see results then things are still kinda messy... BUT still looks awesome, someone on SILO was trying to make one of these but it is only for maya right now

All of these methods require some tweaking. But most of the grunt work is handled by the computer as it should be. It would be nice if we had uv layout tool that instantly mirrored the 3d mesh surface poly for poly. We could simply select mesh regions and select "Map", done. Apply the 2d material brush features with built in layers and all. Import a texture and click the seamless button, adjust the resolution,, tile pattern and size. The we could paint freely using "smart uv seams" or whatever that "magically" blend seams without projection window tricks etc. "Look Ma, no photoshop or gimp!" Let the coders figure this out. Right now 3d artist have it much easier all around.

One day....2d and 3d will live together as one. My dream. We could just avoid uv mapping whenever possible. Hehehe.

But there will always be somebody who loves creating stuff manually. Poor soul. They even do their water simulations by hand. "Frame 355... move vertexes another percentage.... frame 356...."

Have fun!

yinako
11-16-2005, 04:01 AM
Ok I know all these unfold programs like the idea of make one big map for the whole thing, but in reality that does work well, because texture maps are sqaure, and that monster skin pealing shape doesn't use more than 60% of the texture space, that makes a big big difference when you paint it.

Usually when its unfolded the pixel to texel ratio can't be controlled, you will end up with poor resolution in important areas, usually areas that protrude, like breast, nose, toes,.

topmegacool
11-16-2005, 08:25 AM
Ok I know all these unfold programs like the idea of make one big map for the whole thing, but in reality that does work well, because texture maps are sqaure, and that monster skin pealing shape doesn't use more than 60% of the texture space, that makes a big big difference when you paint it.

Usually when its unfolded the pixel to texel ratio can't be controlled, you will end up with poor resolution in important areas, usually areas that protrude, like breast, nose, toes,.

Well sometime you want one map for the whole mesh and sometime not, if you don't want you just select more seams to separate all parts.

The video 2 show you exactely this concept.
Sometime it's not possible to not have distorsion (exemple a sphere with a pulled point) in this case you have to choose... to keep or to cut.

Now there's something to choose between the maximum space used in the map or the minimum distortions in the UV. It's sometime a dillema. I personnaly prefer the distortion free method... there's still the possibility the "destroy" the distortion free result with classical UV editor and with progressive selection move of the UV. Distorsion free result allow much more easy painting in photoshop and reduce seams management.

topmegacool
11-16-2005, 12:13 PM
The unfold3d beta looks even better(no more unwelding edges to create seams!), but what annoys me is that even in the new version , i see distortion (the orange area, the checkers are not even) in the video. Is there a feature in the retail version that address this issue?

The distorsion you can see in these video is related to the logic and have nothing to see with bad mapping. The red part showing the distorsion is a general information. You would get the same (and even more) red parts on UV coming from nurbs (nurbs just fit perfectly the UV in the whole surface... the result is more distorsions).

For example on a face, you'll always have a bit of distorsion on a big nose if you decide to not cut it. It's just like in really, immagine you have a ballon you can stretch and pull a part of it... the picture printed on it, would be stretched and there's nothing you can do to not have this distorsion... except to cut the nose.

barbapapa
11-16-2005, 12:15 PM
i think that the real discussion is not if one does uv maps more squeare or not than the other, or if it packs the uvs and the other not. That, in fact is pretty ridiculous because in any of both packages (unfold 3d and Modo) the artist will probably alter the uvs to match what he wants. Move the around scale themm whatever. The real thing is that noone (maybe few months before, or last year) will pay over thousand dollars for an app that can only layout UVs having the option of buying another one that can fit into a pipeline in various ways (very important ways ...rendering,modeling,texturing) and is cheaper. I mean, if modo gets me 97% of the way unfolding my Uvs, My desition is as clear as water..MODO. even if Unfold takes me the 99% of the way, that is a two porcentage that im willing to do by hand in less than five minutes.
You could say that unfold will save me money because with time those minutes ,if i calculate them, will become hours of production spent on tweaking or packing UVs.... That wont be true.. Modo will save me more money because it can do more things, really fast.
I would stick to modo and those extra five minutes

manuaarts
11-16-2005, 12:54 PM
Look at this video :

http://www.polygonal-design.fr/e_unfold/videos/leloo.avi

this allow to get less distortion on the unwrapped object.
Very interresting !

JacquesD
11-16-2005, 02:56 PM
Look at this video :

http://www.polygonal-design.fr/e_unfold/videos/leloo.avi

this allow to get less distortion on the unwrapped object.
Very interresting !

Yes that's better but this is only available with the studio edition which cost 995 $ !
Again... Modo 201 is 695 $ which comes with a Modeler, a 3D Painter and a fast renderer... the unwrap might not be as powerful as Unfold but it works great and it comes as a free feature with the 103 upgrade.

Besides, 6 months ago, I bought a freelance license of Unfold3D and now while people who have a Studio edition or those who bought it since Nov 7th, they'll get a free upgrade while I'll be charged for it. These guys have got balls I'm telling you !

The ripper.

mustique
11-16-2005, 03:47 PM
They'd sell 10 times more licences if the studio version would be about 200 bucks.
And would do at least twice the money.

Look at how Nevercenter got so much fans,
cause they're selling a super innovative modeller for just $109.

Look at the Z-brush revolution which is accesible for 500 bucks.

It won't last long till other apps have exactly the same powerfull UV tools as Unfold3D.
I'd try to make as much money with a big loyal userbase till that happens.

leuey
11-16-2005, 04:12 PM
This looks more interesting to me. I just wish these programs were plugins to existing software - do we really need to jump out of our app and deal with new hotkeys and selection methods? arrgg....

-Greg





This one looks pretty cool too:

http://www.headus.com/au/uvlayout/

DanSilverman
11-16-2005, 04:37 PM
Yes that's better but this is only available with the studio edition which cost 995 $ !

Uhm, the price on their web site is in pounds:

995

If they do not have the product for the same amount in dollars, then the price would be:

$1,708.35

According to XE.com's currency conversion as of today. I did not see them offering Unfold3D in dollars, so this is almost three times the price of Modo.

Coliba
11-16-2005, 05:12 PM
That's the euro sign;)

It would be really nice to see a comparison between the different pelting features (modo, Max, houdini) and Unfold.

The videos show it's an amazing piece of software and even with the price of 1000, if you do a lot of UV editing, it would quickly pay for itself.

Could someone demonstrate modo's pelting on a complex face?

barbapapa
11-16-2005, 05:23 PM
yes, they definetly have to change their pricing policy, otherwise they will get out of the boat by themselves. As mustique said, there will be other app with the same technology sooner or later. I mean, i could use wings to lay out my uvs, do a really decent job, and still do it for free...Plus, wings models!! it couldnt be more affordable, Or use a freebe like helges pelt plugin inside xsi and still get my job done on time. Still for free.

Coliba
11-16-2005, 05:43 PM
Well this isn't really comparable with the pelt plugin in XSI. We can talk all day about this, but without clear comparisons, we'll never know if one solution truly makes a difference in regards to total time spent not only on unfolding but relaxing/tweaking/arranging uv's.

If Unfold saves you on average say 2 hours on each uvmap you make, it could be worth it.

DaveW
11-16-2005, 06:02 PM
Could someone demonstrate modo's pelting on a complex face?

Is the head in the modo ad all over CGTalk not complex enough? They also have a video of it somewhere, one of the siggraph videos I think.

Phil Lawson
11-16-2005, 06:18 PM
Yes that's better but this is only available with the studio edition which cost 995 $ !
Again... Modo 201 is 695 $ which comes with a Modeler, a 3D Painter and a fast renderer... the unwrap might not be as powerful as Unfold but it works great and it comes as a free feature with the 103 upgrade.


Quoted for 100% agreement. :)

DanSilverman
11-16-2005, 06:53 PM
Oops! Yep! I should know that is the Euro sign ... sorry about that. In any case, that would make the final price:

$1,162.62

Coliba
11-16-2005, 07:02 PM
Is the head in the modo ad all over CGTalk not complex enough? They also have a video of it somewhere, one of the siggraph videos I think.

Well that video doesn't show the resulting uv map looks with a square texture to see what the distortions are like, plus I don't think modo has an auto pack feature or an equalize feature like we saw in that last Unfold vid? Those two features alone would save quite some time I'd think.

One could argue that the difference in price between XSI Essentials and XSI Advanced is too big, but obviously it caters to different user groups. 1000 for a program that saves your team hours of work every day, it's worth it.

I'll have to test the pelting in modo.....

barbapapa
11-16-2005, 07:14 PM
Coliba, im no comparing directly unfold 3d with the pelt plugin, im taking it as an example just to make my point. All im trying to say is that unfold is being sold by an incredible amount of money based on its productivity, ease of use and speed. I think that is not by far the only solution in the market. As i said in an earlier post modo takes you 94% of the way at 600$ and does many more things than unfold, and it costs 3 times less...(easy math for your bussines)... and let me tell you something, i have done some of my uvs with the pelt plugin, and now that i know how it works i can have a nice mapping in less than an hour, maybe 45 min...not too bad for a freebe.

Ive been using the demo version of modo and i can do my uvs in 10 minutes(im thinking on buying it)... I dont see the two hours that you said unfold could save me..... So pretty much this is not an app war and you already know that apps are not to be compared. Is just impossible.
What you can compare is tools. This one does the same thing than the other, but costs less and is more productive...good for your bussines..

as i said , easy maths

Sonk
11-16-2005, 07:36 PM
Well that video doesn't show the resulting uv map looks with a square texture to see what the distortions are like, plus I don't think modo has an auto pack feature or an equalize feature like we saw in that last Unfold vid? Those two features alone would save quite some time I'd think.

One could argue that the difference in price between XSI Essentials and XSI Advanced is too big, but obviously it caters to different user groups. 1000 for a program that saves your team hours of work every day, it's worth it.

I'll have to test the pelting in modo.....

i think its time for Modo and Unfold3d users to put money where their mouth is, anyone got a complex head we all can use to test the unwrap feature of those apps? post it. and we all can take a crack at it :) Just so this thread becomes abit more production and insightful(instead of tossing opinions around)

Para
11-16-2005, 07:45 PM
Oops! Yep! I should know that is the Euro sign ... sorry about that. In any case, that would make the final price:

$1,162.62

For that price I could get both XSI Foundation AND modo 201 so yes, I must agree that Unfold3D is way too expensive for a one trick dog.

Laa-Yosh
11-16-2005, 08:06 PM
Yes that's better but this is only available with the studio edition which cost 995 $ !
Again... Modo 201 is 695 $ which comes with a Modeler, a 3D Painter and a fast renderer... the unwrap might not be as powerful as Unfold but it works great and it comes as a free feature with the 103 upgrade.


On the other hand, only one license of Unfold can serve all the UV mapping needs of an entire studio pretty well...

DaveW
11-16-2005, 08:14 PM
Well that video doesn't show the resulting uv map looks with a square texture to see what the distortions are like, plus I don't think modo has an auto pack feature or an equalize feature like we saw in that last Unfold vid? Those two features alone would save quite some time I'd think.


I don't know how the distortions on that head were, but you can get rid of distortions fairly easily with the relax tool. The auto packing feature doesn't seem all that helpful to me, the computer has no idea what part of the model needs the most pixel space so you end up doing it by hand anyway. The unfold video showed this with huge pixels being smeared across the face, an area that should have the most pixel space since people tend to focus on the face. I just don't see how anyone could justify the cost of this program. It does some cool stuff, but it's just not worth the money when it offers so little compared to other less expensive programs.

Coliba
11-16-2005, 10:30 PM
The auto packing feature doesn't seem all that helpful to me, the computer has no idea what part of the model needs the most pixel space so you end up doing it by hand anyway. The unfold video showed this with huge pixels being smeared across the face, an area that should have the most pixel space since people tend to focus on the face.

That wasn't the video about the auto-packing, that's the one with a tree. It did a pretty good job of arranging the various pieces of the tree on a square texture.

I have a pretty complex head model, I'll try the modo pelting to see. I think people are looking at this from the wrong way, asking: "what do I get for my money", instead of "how much time does this tool save me". You could say cylindrical mapping gets you 90% of the way, but it's often those tiny little tweaks that take you 1-2 hours to get rid of distortions, even with a relax feature (which usually takes away uv space from an area that needs it).

rebo
11-16-2005, 10:56 PM
How about a challange then, someone provide a detailed and complicated head mesh, whoevers the first to unwrap it 100% with minimal distortion wins.

barbapapa
11-17-2005, 12:57 AM
come on. Now you are the one making absurd comparissons, Cilindrical mapping doesent event take you half of the way and you know that. yes, Ill be tweaking to dead..more that two hours for sure.
You are right. People is looking a the thing the way you say. everything comes down to bussines and the market is always changing. Im pretty sure that if things continue like this they will have to drop their prices with all this competition.
And yes, i wouldnt risk my money buying something that maybe will be 3 or 4 times cheaper next year.
You say that is a product targeted to a high end market, That for sure, But look at maya or other heavy wights. They used to cost 30K, and even they couldnt bare the presure of the market and they had to drop their prices.
Is as easy as that, They are asking way to much money for what they offer. They could justify the price y they were offering something unique.. but they arent, and believe me there will be more app joining the pelt and LSCM algorithm club.
If they dont want to drop prices, then they sould offer something appart from unfolding.Something unique. But for pure UV layout..Naaaah o wouldnt risk my money

CB_3D
11-17-2005, 01:24 AM
How about a challange then, someone provide a detailed and complicated head mesh, whoevers the first to unwrap it 100% with minimal distortion wins.

Not THAT detailed or complicated...
There ya go.

As to Unfold, yes, it is a bit pricey. But for one job i had to make UVs for 80 industrial objects. I bought Unfold and, AAMOF, was done in one afternoon. After that i got my Modo 103 update and was quite dissapointed by the overlapping.

sumpm1
11-17-2005, 01:39 AM
I don't care how good the program is. These guys have no clue what VALUE means. Bring it down to under $200 and there is a chance it will become popular. If it remains expensive, people are just going to be begging Nevercenter and other REALISTIC software makers to incorporate this technology. It will not be a secret for long, believe me.

Sonk
11-17-2005, 02:03 AM
Not THAT detailed or complicated...
There ya go.

As to Unfold, yes, it is a bit pricey. But for one job i had to make UVs for 80 industrial objects. I bought Unfold and, AAMOF, was done in one afternoon. After that i got my Modo 103 update and was quite dissapointed by the overlapping.

I been testing that also, Modo seems to overlap alot(around the eyes, mouth,ear,nose) even on the stock models they included with the program. it didnt matter where i placed my seams either..but still UNFOLD3D price is way too high for a hobbylist. it needs to be price competatively. However, Modo UV unwrap feature would only improve in future update! than it would make UNFOLD3D look even more insanely prices...

BTW, downloaded the head model, its full of tri's, so it wont be possible to UV unwrap it, it has to be quads(mostly)..or else no one can test it. And you dont have a UV map in the .obj, so i cant see how you did your UVs.

DaveW
11-17-2005, 04:15 AM
That wasn't the video about the auto-packing, that's the one with a tree. It did a pretty good job of arranging the various pieces of the tree on a square texture.


The one with the head was also showing off the new packing tool, there's a big headline saying "new packing tool". I saw the tree video too, but the software still doesn't know what part of the model needs the most space.

CB_3D's example is a good case for the software, but I think that's also a relatively rare situation. It's nice to have the software available for times like that, but I think they'd get a lot more sales if they lowered the price to something more reasonable.

CB_3D
11-17-2005, 04:50 AM
BTW, downloaded the head model, its full of tri's, so it wont be possible to UV unwrap it, it has to be quads(mostly)


??

The idea was to use it to generate a UVmap. And sice when tris cant be uved??

DanSilverman
11-17-2005, 07:15 AM
Yes, Modo's unwrap does have a problem with holes in the mesh (causing them to overlap when unwrapped) as we can see when we unwrap a head and the eye and mouth areas overlap. This is indeed bad. But there is a simple solution. If you fill the hole (the eye, in this case) with an n-gon then the hole will be preserved. From watching the video of Unfold3D I am guessing the program does something like this automatically? I say this because the eyes of the head look like they are filled with red (sorry for the rhyme ;) ). With Modo's selection tools it is only a click to select all the edges/verts for the eye socket and another click to fill it, so this does not take much time.

BTW - Tri-faces can certainly be unfolded. If only quad faces were allowed to be UV mapped then we would all be in trouble ... especially the 3D game industry which requires triangulated models.

Sonk
11-17-2005, 07:33 AM
BTW - Tri-faces can certainly be unfolded. If only quad faces were allowed to be UV mapped then we would all be in trouble ... especially the 3D game industry which requires triangulated models.

I meant, tris would be abit tougher to unwrap than quads, because i model and think in quads(for the most part). Trying to unwrap a model full of triangles, i'll pass on it :). Its also alot easier to select/see edge loops with quads.

Even in the game industry, you wont want to triangulate the mesh. The engine usually does it for you(at least the source engine does). I never heard of artist having to tri their mesh before unwrapping or before the engine can use it ,AFAIK.


EDIT: i just tried the tip, on fulling the eyes with a n-gon, still getting major overlaps problems...and just tried it on a simplier model, no overlap but ALOT of distortion(more so than UNFOLD3D). IMHO, on fairly complex model Modo unwrap tool tends to overlap, and create distortion..thats 2 things Luxology should address in a incremental release(2.02?). The down side of UNFOLD3d is it doesnt support N-gons.



Yes, you are correct that many engines will triangulate the mesh, but some artists want complete control over their model. For example, take a model of something complex like a low poly model (3000 or less polys) of a human that consists of quad faces. Then hit the function that triangulates the faces. Now take a look at your model and what do you see? You will see that some of the edges created will need to be flipped in order to make the model more pleasing to the eye. What else would you see? You would also see that the way the model was automatically triangulated may cause some areas to not animate very well (pinching would occur in some areas and spikes in others). Once again, spinning edges solves these problems.

I didnt want to go OT, so i edit my post and reply in here again, i guess your refering to non-planar polygons? which really isnt a issue if everyone just model correctly, you dont need to triple the model to not notice non-planar poly(you can pretty tell in OGL, if its non-planar). Next Gen console well let the artist use tens of thousand(spelling?) of polygons per character, so it really isnt a issue for me(8K for my budget on the PC). lastly, as a edge loop modeler, i never use spin edge in Modo, its alot different from pole modeling. Spin edge is great for pole modelers though!

anyhow, read my EDIT on top, and give me your opinion on it. it doesnt seem to work at all.

DanSilverman
11-17-2005, 08:25 AM
Even in the game industry, you wont want to triangulate the mesh. The engine usually does it for you(at least the source engine does). I never heard of artist having to tri their mesh before unwrapping or before the engine can use it ,AFAIK.

Yes, you are correct that many engines will triangulate the mesh, but some artists want complete control over their model. For example, take a model of something complex like a low poly model (3000 or less polys) of a human that consists of quad faces. Then hit the function that triangulates the faces. Now take a look at your model and what do you see? You will see that some of the edges created will need to be flipped in order to make the model more pleasing to the eye. What else would you see? You would also see that the way the model was automatically triangulated may cause some areas to not animate very well (pinching would occur in some areas and spikes in others). Once again, spinning edges solves these problems.

LetterRip
11-17-2005, 08:43 AM
Whether the artist ultimately wants to triangulate the mesh, really there doesn't appear to be any justification to do so prior to UV unwrapping.

Also depending on how the spring system is set up by the uv unwrapping tool I suspect that triangulating prior to unwrapping is likely to give inferior results (ie with quads it can create two diagonal springs per quad, whereas the triangle limits it to one.)

LetterRip

DanSilverman
11-17-2005, 08:47 AM
EDIT: i just tried the tip, on fulling the eyes with a n-gon, still getting major overlaps problems...and just tried it on a simplier model, no overlap but ALOT of distortion(more so than UNFOLD3D). IMHO, on fairly complex model Modo unwrap tool tends to overlap, and create distortion..thats 2 things Luxology should address in a incremental release(2.02?). The down side of UNFOLD3d is it doesnt support N-gons.

I agree. There are some problems with Modo and complex geometry around open areas (like eye sockets) when unfolding. I think the current release in 103 is not the "final" poduct since Unwrap is "technically" a part of 201, which is still being worked on. So I hope to see improvements in the next release.

In any case, I took one of the Modo head models, filled the eyes with an N-gon, selected some edges and created a UV map using Unwrap. The entire process took less time then it took for me to create the screen shots and upload them to my server. Here are the shots:

http://www.m3dd.com/modo/headuv1.jpg

Above: You can see the model and the edges I had selected to create seams. You can also see that I closed loops around the ears.

http://www.m3dd.com/modo/headuv2.jpg

Above: Here you can see the model unfolded in one click (no waiting on iterations to be calculated ... it was instantanious). As you can see the closed loops seperated out parts of the model in the UV map (in this case, the ears).

There were only a few minor overlaps in the eye area. A bit more attention by me when selecting seams might have resolved this. Also there are several options for projections (panar, spherical, etc) and other things that might improve this as well. In a few short clicks I could see the results.

All in all this took about three minutes from the time the model was loaded into Modo (which includes my selection of edges, filling the eyes and all of that).

Sonk
11-17-2005, 09:01 AM
I agree. There are some problems with Modo and complex geometry around open areas (like eye sockets) when unfolding. I think the current release in 103 is not the "final" poduct since Unwrap is "technically" a part of 201, which is still being worked on. So I hope to see improvements in the next release.

In any case, I took one of the Modo head models, filled the eyes with an N-gon, selected some edges and created a UV map using Unwrap. The entire process took less time then it took for me to create the screen shots and upload them to my server. Here are the shots:



Above: You can see the model and the edges I had selected to create seams. You can also see that I closed loops around the ears.



Above: Here you can see the model unfolded in one click (no waiting on iterations to be calculated ... it was instantanious). As you can see the closed loops seperated out parts of the model in the UV map (in this case, the ears).

There were only a few minor overlaps in the eye area. A bit more attention by me when selecting seams might have resolved this. Also there are several options for projections (panar, spherical, etc) and other things that might improve this as well. In a few short clicks I could see the results.

All in all this took about three minutes from the time the model was loaded into Modo (which includes my selection of edges, filling the eyes and all of that).

I wont say the area around the eyes are "minor" overlapping, IMO they are major overlapping, because it would require alot of time to tweak to get less distortion. And look at the ears, alot of distortion and overlap, if you apply a checker texture map to it, you see. The eye are awful, because you have less inner eye lid space to rid of the overlapping, so you'll have to expand the rest of the model to make space for it...and that could get messy.The ears are the same, alot of overlapping and distortion(as far as i can tell) That UV tweak tool from polyboost (3DSMAX plugin), would be handy for such a task!

I've attach a frog head model, its creating using edge loop modeling(hence why there are many 5 side polygons), try to unwrap it in Modo(anyone else can try it also, in other apps, and post up the intail result), i get bad results even at high iteration, projection type,etc. UNFOLD3d would have no problem with it though.

I honest think that Modo 201 wont have a improve UV unwrap tool, not because Luxology cant do it, but because they probably have things higher on the to-do list. Heres hoping 2.02 well have it.

topmegacool
11-17-2005, 09:26 AM
Not THAT detailed or complicated...
There ya go....


Here's what I get with after 1 mn of "work" with Unfold3D.

Screenshot (http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84719&stc=1) : http://http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84719&stc=1

OBJ file Here (http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84718&stc=1) :


I converted the head to Quad instead of to keep tri because it's much more pleasant to check and to see UV when the polygons are quad.

But I also unwraped the triangle head, to show it's not a problem (the file is just twice the size).

I put a zip file with :

- the head converted to quad
- the unwrapped triangle head
- the unwrapped quad head

Now I'd be curious to see what Modo do compared to Unfold3D...

Let's see...

topmegacool
11-17-2005, 09:36 AM
Here's what I get with after 1 mn of "work" with Unfold3D.

[/url]I put a zip file with :

- the head converted to quad
- the unwrapped triangle head
- the unwrapped quad head



Opss sorry I just forget I had to reduce the [url="http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84718&stc=1"]ZIP file (http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84719&stc=1) to post here and I finnaly only put the unwrapped Quad head with Unfold3D.



Cheers

topmegacool
11-17-2005, 09:53 AM
....

Here's the frog : Frog_Head_unfold3d.zip (http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84721&stc=1)

DanSilverman
11-17-2005, 10:09 AM
Here is a Modo UV map for the frog head:

http://www.m3dd.com/modo/froguv.jpg

It took a couple of minutes. The results you get depend on where you "cut" the model (where you define your seams).

remi.a
11-17-2005, 11:41 AM
Hi,

I am the author of Unfold3D. I just want to say something about the price. You do not have to pay 990 euro to have better than pelting or LSCM method. The FREELANCE edition (300 euros) of unfold3d have the SAME unfolding algorithm of the STUDIO edition (but it do not have the surface optimisation feature). Even the STARTER edition (150 euros) have also the SAME unfolding algorithm (but cannot handle multimesh).

The STUDIO edition is for the big companies whitch have big money and whant the top of the art technology.

And I do not even talk about the pricing of the future v4 of Unfold3D... (If I do that my editor will kick my ass )

Thanks

ThomasMahler
11-17-2005, 12:21 PM
And I do not even talk about the pricing of the future v4 of Unfold3D... (If I do that my editor will kick my ass )

Thanks

Does that mean it'll be more or less expensive?

I get your point, but I still think the pricing is too high. I mean, Wings will give you unwrapping for free, Blender will give you unwrapping for free, it's included within Modo, XSI can do it now, UVLayout kicks ass (and will be sold at about 250 USD), Maya can do it, etc. etc. Personally, I really like the way UVLayout works.

Supply and demand, man. And the mentioned Unwrapping tools also will become better and better over time.

mustique
11-17-2005, 12:49 PM
Hi,

... The FREELANCE edition (300 euros) of unfold3d have the SAME unfolding algorithm of the STUDIO edition (but it do not have the surface optimisation feature)...

Thanks

Its the surface optimization feature that makes Unfold3d stand out from the crowd.
you can do the rest with other apps in additional 5 minutes anyway...

JacquesD
11-17-2005, 12:51 PM
Its the surface optimization feature that makes Unfold3d stand out from the crowd.
I can do the rest with other apps in additional 5 minutes anyway...

Totally agree on that one!

The ripper.

topmegacool
11-17-2005, 02:41 PM
Does that mean it'll be more or less expensive?

... Wings will give you unwrapping for free, Blender will give you unwrapping for free, it's included within Modo, XSI can do it now, UVLayout kicks ass (and will be sold at about 250 USD), Maya can do it, etc. etc. Personally, I really like the way UVLayout works.

Supply and demand, man. And the mentioned Unwrapping tools also will become better and better over time.

I think the main point is the quality of the UV.

An old ww car can drive you everywhere... just like a Porshe but then if you take the highway you might be late with your old car.. even if you buy a brand new ww Beattle, it'll be new and shinny but still less quick than the expensive Porshe.

Pelting isn't new, Houdini has it for a long time.


I was hoping to see other tests than mine with the head (http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84711) CB_3D provided

I tryed pelt on this head but got bad results.
I put a comparative picture here (http://www.uploading.com/?get=5B2T0WES) (Click into the yellow rectangle at the top).


I think an interview (http://www.polygonal-design.fr/e_unfold/Winstone.php) on the unfold site is smart enought to clarify things.

Coliba
11-17-2005, 04:53 PM
Does that mean it'll be more or less expensive?

I get your point, but I still think the pricing is too high. I mean, Wings will give you unwrapping for free, Blender will give you unwrapping for free, it's included within Modo, XSI can do it now, UVLayout kicks ass (and will be sold at about 250 USD), Maya can do it, etc. etc. Personally, I really like the way UVLayout works.


Come on, the pelt plugin for XSI can't really be compared to this, look at the results. I tried the head in Modo as well, and had the same problems as the others, especially with the eyes and ears. Take a look at the default result of Unfold, almost perfect. This is the difference between working 10 minutes on a uv layout, and 1-2 hours. It's always tricky expanding uv space to get rid of the overlaps, you can end up working on it as much as if you had just begun with a simple cylindrical projection.

I'm seriously thinking of buying the Freelance version, I wonder though if they offer upgrade prices to Studio version later on.

Btw, UVLayout looks pretty good also. Could you try that head with it?

de_tomato
11-17-2005, 05:07 PM
Anyone make a comparison with headus UVLayout? (http://www.headus.com/au/uvlayout/index.html)
Anyway, its too expensive, Im definately sure my boss wouldnt even consider it, pelting in max 8 is good enough.

DanSilverman
11-17-2005, 06:44 PM
I have to agree that Unfold3D does a much better job at unfolding the geometry. This is my big complaint with Modo (the overlapping faces on the eyes and other similar areas). Even so I am not willing to pay of the price for the studio version and the missing feature in the lower-end version is too important for me to pay about $150 bucks for it. I may re-evaluate it when the next version is released, though ... depending on what Luxology does ;) .

Sonk
11-17-2005, 07:32 PM
Here's the frog : Frog_Head_unfold3d.zip (http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=84721&stc=1)

thanks for testing that out, great results! I unwrap the same frog in Modo today with the same seams, and got the samilair result, however only minor overlap(can be fix in seconds). Though i come to the conclusion that on more complex(high dense mesh, the frog is very low res), Modo would create alot more major overlap, whereas UNFOLD3D would handle it fine.

My main complaint with Modo UV unwrapper is the overlapping(not distortion), as you pointed out it'll take as long time to fix(on dense mesh), hopefully they address this in the future, and that might drive the price of UNFOLD3D down to something more competative.

BTW, in the pelting example, what software did you use(for the UNFOLD3D vs. pelting picture)


I have to agree that Unfold3D does a much better job at unfolding the geometry. This is my big complaint with Modo (the overlapping faces on the eyes and other similar areas). Even so I am not willing to pay of the price for the studio version and the missing feature in the lower-end version is too important for me to pay about $150 bucks for it. .

quoted for agreement! wonder if they have student discount? i think the low end version doesnt create overlap either, thats my main concern with Modo.

Laa-Yosh
11-17-2005, 08:07 PM
Guys, don't expect any unwrapper to do wonders for you. If there's a lot of distortion, the only true solution is to change the edge cuts...

topmegacool
11-18-2005, 09:03 AM
BTW, in the pelting example, what software did you use(for the UNFOLD3D vs. pelting picture)

I used Max8.... XSi wan't able to manage it (too slow, too much polygons).
But it took me a long time to adjust this pelt in Max8 and it was painfull.
The result is also bad, as you can see.


Its the surface optimization feature that makes Unfold3d stand out from the crowd.
you can do the rest with other apps in additional 5 minutes anyway...

I don't really agree, we see now with a serious comparative that you just can't unfold the exemple model (which doesn't come from me) with a decent result in Modo or other pelt method.

If you unfold a potatoe (just to be sacastic :)), ok go for Pelt but for many geometry, especially with angle or more complex shape, you'll fail or waste time.

On the other hand the basic geometric unfolding with Unfold3D is already excelent and doesn't especially need a surface optimization in most of the cases.

If you think a surface optimization over a pelt would give a good result, you are wrong.
surface optimization the way it works in Unfold first need a very good geometry unwrap.

But I think you forget something very important, Unfold also allow you to win a lot of time with the new "Intelligent edge selector" (see the video), I don't know in any 3D package a better and more quick way to manage edge selections... well this is again something that make you win time to define your seams.

I Use Unfold for a long time now (since the very first alpha), I used it on a very dense meshes, on very complex meshes and it never failed.

DanSilverman
11-18-2005, 09:16 AM
But I think you forget something very important, Unfold also allow you to win a lot of time with the new "Intelligent edge selector" (see the video), I don't know in any 3D package a better and more quick way to manage edge selections... well this is again something that make you win time to define your seams.

While I agree with you that Unfold3D produces superior UVs in many cases, I am not so certain about your last stated (as quoted above). Modo's edge selection tools are fantastic. Double click on an edge within an eye socket, for example, and all edges that form that loop are selected. That was in a double-click. Most loops can be selected in this manner (especially if the model is well constructed). Selecting all the edges to split the frog head I UV mapped (see further up in this thread) took seconds to do. Selection of edges, faces and verts in Modo is extremely powerful.

Even so, you are correct in that Modo's Unwrap does not do as good of a job as Unfold3D does. This is evident in the overlapping that is often produced on complex models and from the fact that more cuts (seem selections) are needed to get a better unwrap.

topmegacool
11-18-2005, 10:05 AM
.. Modo's edge selection tools are fantastic. Double click on an edge within an eye socket, for example, and all edges that form that loop are selected. That was in a double-click. Most loops can be selected in this manner (especially if the model is well constructed). Selecting all the edges to split the frog head I UV mapped (see further up in this thread) took seconds to do. Selection of edges, faces and verts in Modo is extremely powerful.

That's just classical selection you acn see in all 3d package.

There are 2 problems with edge loop selection :

1 - You often don't want to select the whole loop (so you have to substract)
2 - Edgeloop become problem when you meet 5 edges at a node

These probleme become especially true when you define UV seams.

What's new with Unfold3D is it just become intelligent and show you what you WILL select,
It of corse has edge loop selection but will stop the loop where you click (click start and end of the loop) it has symetrical selection, can also guess the shortess path between 2 point, etc... But you can't evaluate how it's a new productive concept before you try it.

In the very last betta, this has been improved comparatively to the videos.

DanSilverman
11-18-2005, 10:17 AM
That's just classical selection you acn see in all 3d package.

Then you really don't know how Modo (and its ability to select edges) works.

mustique
11-18-2005, 01:07 PM
Bottom line is they ask for:

X2 the money of XSI fundamentals

X2 the money of Z-brush

X10 the money of Silo.

X1/2 the money of Maya Complete.

X2 the money of Photoshop

etc... for their flagship UV app.


Again they have a very good tool and they have talented coders working there. But unfortunately the marketing department or those who are in charge of it don't know what they are doing.

The tool they developed can easily be drawn obsolete if Softimage, Autodesk or another big developer concentrates a little bit on UV unfolding. Maybe even with their next versions. I'm sure they'd do it today if they'd see these guys website. Hell they can even be aquired by them. (maybe that is exactly what they wan't)

THAT'S THE REASON WHY EVERYBODY COMPLAINS ON THE PRICE.
WE AS THE USERS WILL BE LEFT IN THE COLD WITH OUR HARD EARNED MONEY
INVESTED IN A TOOL, THAT COMES BY DEFAULT WITH THE NEXT VERSION OF OUR APPS.

manuaarts
11-18-2005, 01:18 PM
I don't know selection mode with modo, that seem to be an excellent modeler, i suppose it can handle geometry sub-element easily.

Unfold just get a functionnality very interresting in the case you need to make a cut:
You select an edge on the model, and as you move your mouse on the edges, you see a "preview" of the selection, that is like the path between the two edges.

This method is very usefull and intuitive.

There is also, of course, edge loop in one click, and many options to manage the case where you loop came to a 5 edge node (turn, stop, turn if the angle is superior to a defined value).

All the selections modes, "edge loop" or "edge to edge" use the system of the preview that make the selection very pleasant.

I hope to see this kind of selection will appears soon in many 3D software.

barbapapa
11-18-2005, 04:02 PM
and that costs a thousend dollars.... No thanks. i rather not preview my edge loops.
This will be inplemented some how in other softwares as many have said. i rahter save money to upgrade when my software implements uv unfolding by default. It will be cheaper for sure.

remi.a
11-20-2005, 04:49 PM
Its the surface optimization feature that makes Unfold3d stand out from the crowd. you can do the rest with other apps in additional 5 minutes anyway...

Totaly DISagree with that one !

Even without the surface optimization feature, the unwrapping algorithm of Unfold3D is better (and by far). The more your mesh will be complex and big the more you will see the difference beetween to two methods. With the pelting method, with complex meshes, you will have a lot triangles flips and a lot of stretching.

Cheers

Mike RB
11-20-2005, 05:38 PM
Ok.

Here is a modo103 version of CB_3D's head unwrapped. There are 3 images. The 1st shows what edges I chose to unwrap on, the second and third show the overall quality and the eye area in particular.

http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/unwrap_3d.jpg

http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/unwrap_face.jpg

http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/unwrap_eye.jpg

Process:

I chose the edges I did because of modo's limitations with ears. Snaking an edge along the back of the ear like that lets modo do a pretty good job on the ear.

I capped the eyes and mouth. I also added a vert in the center and created radial edges to that vert. In modo thats a one click operation called "spikey".

I clicked UVunwrap, set the initial projection to "group normal" and dragged until about 400 iterations.

Even this result was decent, but to refine it a bit more I used UVunwrap again with the initial projection set to "use current map", which takes the current UV info and uses that as an initial projection to start the unwrapping. I think I dragged this second pass out to about 200 iterations or so.

Modo did a pretty good job, on both the eye, and the ear. This was with no manual labor other than the initial edge selection and hole capping stuff.

-Mike

remi.a
11-21-2005, 05:03 PM
Ok.

Here is a modo103 version of CB_3D's head unwrapped. There are 3 images. The 1st shows what edges I chose to unwrap on, the second and third show the overall quality and the eye area in particular.

http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/unwrap_3d.jpg

http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/unwrap_face.jpg

http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/unwrap_eye.jpg

Process:

I chose the edges I did because of modo's limitations with ears. Snaking an edge along the back of the ear like that lets modo do a pretty good job on the ear.

I capped the eyes and mouth. I also added a vert in the center and created radial edges to that vert. In modo thats a one click operation called "spikey".

I clicked UVunwrap, set the initial projection to "group normal" and dragged until about 400 iterations.

Even this result was decent, but to refine it a bit more I used UVunwrap again with the initial projection set to "use current map", which takes the current UV info and uses that as an initial projection to start the unwrapping. I think I dragged this second pass out to about 200 iterations or so.

Modo did a pretty good job, on both the eye, and the ear. This was with no manual labor other than the initial edge selection and hole capping stuff.

-Mike


Nice.

But sincerely, with this type of mesh (such a size and complexity), have you always this kind of nice storys ?

I ask that because I have tried the modo unwrap (with the trial version), and I failed to unwrap my big meshes (not so big) with this tool.
=> some parts of the meshes was extremely distorded, and a lot of polygons was flipped (overlaps).

I have however added a lot number of iterations and the nice results never came.

Sincerely,

Remi.

DanSilverman
11-21-2005, 07:29 PM
remi.a,

With Modo's unwrap it is not so much the interations, but three things:

- Where you set your seams (the edges you select)
- Filling gaps such as eyes, etc to keep overlapping from happening
- Sperating out parts of the model (like the ears or the eye sockets) to help the unwrapper

Unfold3D obviously does a much nicer (cleaner) job, but a great can be done in Modo as well. I am hoping/betting the Luxology team will keep improving Unwrap.

mustique
11-22-2005, 02:07 AM
I tried to unfold a not so complex object with the free version of Unfold3d.
The object is a polysphere with a few neighboring faces extruded along a curve.

I made various logical uv cuts along edgeloops etc with different versions of the object and the results were far from impresive. The app crashed several times. When it didn't, I got bad results. (see pics)

Unwrap3D doesn't work with cubic architectural objects.
Organic objects, that have an evenly distributed shape in their bounding box are performing good though.

The thing is that you expect all these kind of convenience for all types of polyobjects
with an app that calls itself the ultimate UV tool.

Mike RB
11-22-2005, 05:17 AM
http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/unwrap_ballthing.jpg

It's not the same object, but modo did a decent job...
could you post that object you used?

Mike

Coliba
11-22-2005, 07:18 AM
How did you cut your object mustique?

topmegacool
11-22-2005, 09:38 AM
I tried to unfold a not so complex object with the free version of Unfold3d.
The object is a polysphere with a few neighboring faces extruded along a curve.

I made various logical uv cuts along edgeloops etc with different versions of the object and the results were far from impresive. The app crashed several times. When it didn't, I got bad results. (see pics)

Unwrap3D doesn't work with cubic architectural objects.
Organic objects, that have an evenly distributed shape in their bounding box are performing good though.

The thing is that you expect all these kind of convenience for all types of polyobjects
with an app that calls itself the ultimate UV tool.


Wow ... I can demonstrate the reverse anytime. dude you can't immagine how many architectural and angular objects we put in Unfold we never got problems...

The bad thing is people can read "Unfold doesn't work with architectural" and repeat it while at the same time it's especially perfect in this task.

I think they need to remove the crappy fraterniware version and put a demo fully working of the upcoming V4 (no face limits but maybe without the save option). Then we won't see anymore this kind of bad comments.

Sonk
11-22-2005, 09:51 AM
I think they need to remove the crappy fraterniware version and put a demo fully working of the upcoming V4 (no face limits but maybe without the save option). Then we won't see anymore this kind of bad comments.

Im not sure that'll solve anything, i like the demo version with the save function. i use it on anything with less than 1000 triangles. I think they should increase the polygon count to 4,000 (since its version 4 ;) )

or they can have 2 demo version. one at 4,000 polygons + save function and other with no polygon limit, but without the same function ?

Lastly, does anyone know if they have student license of UNFOLD3D? i would be interested in it(us students are poor, but we want to use great tools!)

mustique
11-22-2005, 01:35 PM
[QUOTE=...

I think they need to remove the crappy fraterniware version and put a demo fully working of the upcoming V4 (no face limits but maybe without the save option). Then we won't see anymore this kind of bad comments.[/QUOTE]


Yes they definately should put an evaluation version on their site, that better resembles the capabilities of the product.

COLIBA: Yes I cut the UVs in ever imaginable way I could think of without any success. As I sad, the app crashed a lot, so the pics you see here were the best result I got with the free fraterniware version of Unfold3D.

mustique
11-22-2005, 01:50 PM
Mike RB, thx for for your pics.
I'm uploading a pic of my object for those who want to make tests too.
I guess this kind of an object is a good candidate to test UV tools.

(PS: Wanted to upload the obj file but it doesn't accept rar files.)

remi.a
11-22-2005, 02:43 PM
I tried to unfold a not so complex object with the free version of Unfold3d.
The object is a polysphere with a few neighboring faces extruded along a curve.

I made various logical uv cuts along edgeloops etc with different versions of the object and the results were far from impresive. The app crashed several times. When it didn't, I got bad results. (see pics)

Unwrap3D doesn't work with cubic architectural objects.
Organic objects, that have an evenly distributed shape in their bounding box are performing good though.

The thing is that you expect all these kind of convenience for all types of polyobjects
with an app that calls itself the ultimate UV tool.


Well, try to be a little more "positive oriented" before posting such a "test".
Firstly, you can try to add a cutting line on your object (your object has only a little hole on the top of the sphere)
Secondly, If unfold3d always crash with your cutting lines, simply try an other method to do them.


I understand that you can be angry against the Unfold3D pricing policy. Seriously I can understand. But it is extremely difficult for us to choose the prices. If you cannot afford, said it like the others members (be sure that we take note for the next v4), and don't buy. But please, do not post such things !

thanks

Remi.

remi.a
11-22-2005, 02:58 PM
[QUOTE=...

I think they need to remove the crappy fraterniware version and put a demo fully working of the upcoming V4 (no face limits but maybe without the save option). Then we won't see anymore this kind of bad comments.


Yes they definately should put an evaluation version on their site, that better resembles the capabilities of the product.

COLIBA: Yes I cut the UVs in ever imaginable way I could think of without any success. As I sad, the app crashed a lot, so the pics you see here were the best result I got with the free fraterniware version of Unfold3D.

In two weeks, there will be an evalution version of the V4 with the integrated cutting tools (without saving features).

However, I do not recognize your 3d software. Perhaps it is the obj file exporter which cause problems.

Before exporting your object, try to move the points on the cutting line to see if the cutting process has been well done. Sometimes, somes points are relyed with only two polygons, but the polygons are not connected themselves (we call that butterfly points), unfold3d dislike thats points. Of course, it is annoying to do that, but the problem will disapear in the v4.

Thanks

mustique
11-22-2005, 05:18 PM
...

However, I do not recognize your 3d software. Perhaps it is the obj file exporter which cause problems.


Thanks

The 3d software I used to export the obj file is called Maya. :)

remi.a
11-22-2005, 05:53 PM
The 3d software I used to export the obj file is called Maya. :)

Well, that is. The "Edit Polygons->Split Vertex" of maya feature is usefull to make the cutting lines. But this feature do not realy match with what we need because it splits a vertex in FOUR vertices instead of TWO. With this tool, it is sure that you will have to deal with the "buttefly points" (see below).

Thanks

efbie
11-22-2005, 05:59 PM
I'm surprised that no one pointed the fact that blender has also LSCM for a long time, and will have even more for 2.40 which will be released in a few weeks/days

(Live lscm, new for 2.40 )
http://orange.blender.org/wp-content/themes/orange/images/media/lscm_live.mov

just try it! blender is downloaded, installed and launched quicker than you launch 3DMax....

mustique
11-22-2005, 06:19 PM
Well, that is. The "Edit Polygons->Split Vertex" of maya feature is usefull to make the cutting lines. But this feature do not realy match with what we need because it splits a vertex in FOUR vertices instead of TWO. With this tool, it is sure that you will have to deal with the "buttefly points" (see below).

Thanks

Well in Maya you select the edges you want to the cut UVs of and select "polygon UVs > cut UVs". Splitting vertices in order to make Unwrap3D recognize your geometry is poor obj compatibility. That modifies your geometry which is no no.

Anyway I still think your on a promising product here.
I'll look forward to your next free evaluation version and hopefully on a more reasonable pricing policy.

LetterRip
11-22-2005, 06:57 PM
efbie,

that feature shown is in CVS while we have a release soon - if you are going to mention a feature you should probably mention what version it is/will be available in.

LetterRip

Gwot
11-22-2005, 07:53 PM
just try it! blender is downloaded, installed and launched quicker than you launch 3DMax....

Haha! Good one! =D

Sonk
11-22-2005, 09:28 PM
In two weeks, there will be an evalution version of the V4 with the integrated cutting tools (without saving features).



hmm, i dont know about that, i actually like the saving feature! just increase the polygon count! 4000K? :P

remi.a
11-23-2005, 10:09 AM
hmm, i dont know about that, i actually like the saving feature! just increase the polygon count! 4000K? :P

Well he he... you want a free product for all the game artists
... not silly :p

SheepFactory
11-23-2005, 03:21 PM
so far my experience with the modo unwrap is:

click > drag > crash

RockinAkin
11-23-2005, 07:15 PM
I think its established that most major (good) 3d packages have pelt mapping features now.
Some are better than others, but I'm most impressed with 3ds max's so far.

3ds max's built in pelt mapping has been working like a dream for me, haven't run into a single problem working with both very high and low poly meshes. It does exactly what I want and comes back asking for more. :thumbsup:

Sonk
11-23-2005, 10:15 PM
Well he he... you want a free product for all the game artists
... not silly :p

:D cant blame me for trying? ;) yes im a game artist.


I think its established that most major (good) 3d packages have pelt mapping features now.
Some are better than others, but I'm most impressed with 3ds max's so far.

3ds max's built in pelt mapping has been working like a dream for me, haven't run into a single problem working with both very high and low poly meshes. It does exactly what I want and comes back asking for more. :thumbsup:

Maybe you should post some examples up, with a checker texture applied to it.

JA-forreal
11-23-2005, 10:30 PM
While not as powerful as the modo stuff etc yet for LSCM Mapping, Blender just got an update. You gotta love OSS. They call it "Live LSCM" It's nice to play with but better to work with than the previous setup. You can CVS it or check out the Blender sites for a build. If you build your own Blender with cvs you can can test it out right now on most of your OS solutions.

Have fun!

I still think that Unfold3D rules right now for this sort of thing.... But that's just me. Artist don't want to think hard about their cg they just want to do it.....

j3st3r
10-11-2006, 02:43 PM
modos edge selection tools drive me crazy...the selection workflow is incredible slow... Modo should learn selecting from XSI. I think unfold3d has a really great selection method, similar to XSI (not as powerful).

modo selects ALL loops if accidentally double click...I couldn`t select loopsections (or path), because when I doubleclick, modo selects all possible loops from the currently selected edges...silly...

remi.a, keep on, I think unfold3d is a must have. I hope, I`ll have money to buy it, but the demo is really promising!!!

CGTalk Moderation
10-11-2006, 02:43 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.