Hauksbee
Members +
That's good news. Anyone have any knowledge on SketchUp?
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
UVW Mapping in Gmax tutorial series
- Thread starter hairyspin
- Start date
Hauksbee
Members +
Much appreciated, guys. Thanks.
Here's the way I do the that part of the process:
1) Export as Quake III (MD3) to my MD3 Folder
2) Open the MD3 in LithUnwrap
3) Select Import to the two popup windows
4) Save the 24-bit bmp in my UVW Map folder
5) Apply the new bmp to the project
1) Export as Quake III (MD3) to my MD3 Folder
2) Open the MD3 in LithUnwrap
3) Select Import to the two popup windows
4) Save the 24-bit bmp in my UVW Map folder
5) Apply the new bmp to the project
The number of pixels per inch/meter is key.
So, to get high resolution, you must map so that the pixels per inch/foot/meter are sufficient to give the required resolution.
Divide your object length or width by the pixel width of your bmp to get the result.
For large exterior scenery objects, or close up detail like in cockpits, you need more pixels per unit to get that resolution.
For a 20 meter wide fence, for example, using a 1024 X 1024 bmp, you have only 51 pixels per meter to give detail (1.3 pixels per inch or 15.6 per foot).
So, to get high resolution, you must map so that the pixels per inch/foot/meter are sufficient to give the required resolution.
Divide your object length or width by the pixel width of your bmp to get the result.
For large exterior scenery objects, or close up detail like in cockpits, you need more pixels per unit to get that resolution.
For a 20 meter wide fence, for example, using a 1024 X 1024 bmp, you have only 51 pixels per meter to give detail (1.3 pixels per inch or 15.6 per foot).
Hauksbee
Members +
I was afraid you'd say that.
See attachment: Select that icon to show map in viewport
Select your object, select the material, Apply
Select your object, select the material, Apply
Hauksbee
Members +
Not quite there...
When I get the proper Map selected, the blue-checkered cube is greyed out. I discovered that I had been saving my textures in the Meshes folder. I copied the contents to Maps and started again. I bring up the Materials Editor, click Materials Navigator, go to Maps, select the proper Map, and it appears in the window of Materials Editor. Up until then, the checkered box is visible. But when my Map appears in the Mat. Ed. window, the checkered box grays out (as you can see in the previous post). It seems as though I need to get the Map name to show in the window under the image. (Name) Map #2 wants to be WOFF TEST BLDG_t_. (Which it is in the Bitmap Parameters Rollout.)
When I get the proper Map selected, the blue-checkered cube is greyed out. I discovered that I had been saving my textures in the Meshes folder. I copied the contents to Maps and started again. I bring up the Materials Editor, click Materials Navigator, go to Maps, select the proper Map, and it appears in the window of Materials Editor. Up until then, the checkered box is visible. But when my Map appears in the Mat. Ed. window, the checkered box grays out (as you can see in the previous post). It seems as though I need to get the Map name to show in the window under the image. (Name) Map #2 wants to be WOFF TEST BLDG_t_. (Which it is in the Bitmap Parameters Rollout.)
Attachments
Do you have the object(s) selected to apply to at this point?
I select the objects, go get the map/material (or create one) with the Navigator, then apply.
I select the objects, go get the map/material (or create one) with the Navigator, then apply.
Hauksbee
Members +
Yes, it's selected. Then I go to the Map with the Navigator, select it, click 'Open', the Navigator closes, the Map image is in the Materials Editor window and the checkered box is grayed out. Would it help if I attached the Gmax doc.?
I also notice that your Apply button is greyed out. That is usually because you do not have an object selected.
Look at my example above. I do NOT have an object selected either and my Apply button is greyed out, although I have buttons available that you do not.
Compare my screen shot with yours for differences.
I am running the FS9 SDK, gmax 1.2.
Now, try re-selecting your object to Apply.
Look at my example above. I do NOT have an object selected either and my Apply button is greyed out, although I have buttons available that you do not.
Compare my screen shot with yours for differences.
I am running the FS9 SDK, gmax 1.2.
Now, try re-selecting your object to Apply.
Robert, do not use the Material Navigator to do this: don't, don't, don't! You are using the Navigator to pick your material, but what you're actually doing is loading the map only into the Material Editor:–
You must load the complete material into the editor:–
I got myself tied in so many knots using the Navigator when I started out: it's a useful tool but a bloomin' nuisance when you don't know.
Hope this helps!
You must load the complete material into the editor:–
I got myself tied in so many knots using the Navigator when I started out: it's a useful tool but a bloomin' nuisance when you don't know.
Hope this helps!
Last edited:
Hauksbee
Members +
Progress is being made. Thanks, Hairyspin for the last update. It did help. Right now my problem is the resolution. When I went back and looked at the blue/white initial Poly Map in Photoshop, I was somewhat shocked to see that Gmax had saved it at 7.62 pixels/inch, so that's the way it came into Photoshop. No wonder (thought I) that it was so heavily pixelated on the model when I built my texture. The (seemingly) obvious solution was 'more pixels/inch'. I re-saved at 300 dpi. Gmax couldn't load a file that big, (1.3 Gb) So I re-saved again at 120 dpi. This time it loaded just fine, but was just as pixelated. The 'dpi/quick fix' didn't work.
Here's Milt's previous advice:
So, to get high resolution, you must map so that the pixels per inch/foot/meter are sufficient to give the required resolution.
Divide your object length or width by the pixel width of your bmp to get the result.
For large exterior scenery objects, or close up detail like in cockpits, you need more pixels per unit to get that resolution.
For a 20 meter wide fence, for example, using a 1024 X 1024 bmp, you have only 51 pixels per meter to give detail (1.3 pixels per inch or 15.6 per foot).
My building (1 unit=1foot) is 40 ft. wide. I can't see the bitmap size without collapsing the Stack (can I do that at this point?) but it was somewhat on the order of 1080x1080. That gives me 27. Does that mean 27 pixels/foot? Looking at Milt's last statement, I'm assuming that the numbers given are examples that are too low. (?) What is an acceptable (threshold) number of pixels to achieve a reasonable resolution? If my numbers don't get me there, what do I adjust: the model or the bitmap?
.
Here's Milt's previous advice:
So, to get high resolution, you must map so that the pixels per inch/foot/meter are sufficient to give the required resolution.
Divide your object length or width by the pixel width of your bmp to get the result.
For large exterior scenery objects, or close up detail like in cockpits, you need more pixels per unit to get that resolution.
For a 20 meter wide fence, for example, using a 1024 X 1024 bmp, you have only 51 pixels per meter to give detail (1.3 pixels per inch or 15.6 per foot).
My building (1 unit=1foot) is 40 ft. wide. I can't see the bitmap size without collapsing the Stack (can I do that at this point?) but it was somewhat on the order of 1080x1080. That gives me 27. Does that mean 27 pixels/foot? Looking at Milt's last statement, I'm assuming that the numbers given are examples that are too low. (?) What is an acceptable (threshold) number of pixels to achieve a reasonable resolution? If my numbers don't get me there, what do I adjust: the model or the bitmap?
.
