[Mihai]

Step 1. This is a cubic projector with 1,1,1 scale. It's distorted and strange, no good.

Well....I don't know how many times I have to keep explaining this.....that isn't distorted and strange, that's what a cubic projector is supposed to do by default. What you would like to have is a cubic projector that's always perfectly square, no matter if it's applied to a rectangle like in your example and somehow it's scale should be neither absolute or relative to the object, it should just be some arbitrary scale relative to whatever the size of the square cubic projector happened to be when you created it for that object. How is that supposed to work later with real scale, with objects of different sizes? What should that scale parameter show exactly?

[superbad]

Semantics. Instead of explaining to me how a cubic projector is supposed to work, explain to me how to do what I just asked. Please.

[dilbert]

Semantics. Instead of explaining to me how a cubic projector is supposed to work, explain to me how to do what I just asked. Please.

I feel your pain superbad. Thats' why I still haven't upgraded to 1.6 as it's too risky to relearn how to workaround the problems. I sure would like to try the displacement mapping feature sometime in the future, but until I stop seeing topics like this on the forum I'll have to stick with 1.5

[superbad]

Oh, and by the way, why are you lecturing me on how a cubic projector is supposed to work? You guys wrote it to work the way it did in RC5, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.5. It worked. Why mess with it? If you're so hellbent on being dogmatically correct, this should have been added as an option, not default behavior. Or at the very least, you should have provided an option to recreate the old behavior.

Instead we get a change that destroys workflow (I assume- maybe there's an easy way to do what I'm asking, but so far nobody has given me one), and then we get lectured for questioning it. This is infuriating, if you can't infer that from my tone. I guess I should be thankful that 1.5.1 works reasonably well.

[Mattia Sullini]

Step3. I want the texture 50% bigger on all sides. In 1.5 I would have set the scale to 1.5, 1.5, 1.5. What do I do in 1.6?[/quote]

I hope Mihai will not get angry if i try to answer instead of him. But during the pre-release, he had very hard times trying to explain me the way projectors work now. And that's the reason why i dare to give an answer: just because i felt your same exact pain. You already got the answer: after having normalized the projector, the only thing you can do is calling the material editor and edit the Xtile Ytile values. The alphanumeric standard cardboard in the viewport is projected now by a 1mx1mx1m projector, so if you will input, for instance 0.5,1,2 your texture will be projected as if it was 50cm,1m,2m. We have to begin to think at the X-Yvalues not as adimensional parameters, but as real world units. If the normalized projector is 1x1x1 and i set a value of 0.5 in the X-Y tile field, i am inputting 1mx0.5=50cm.
Maybe it would be then easier to think X-Y tile values as texture's size in meters.

I find myself this way of handling projectors not so smooth...it suits perfectly to those that map with UVs, but not everybody does it, and surely amongst archviz professionals the realscale fans are the majority.

I can believe that from a programmer's point of view the new way is more effective, but i still think that programs have to be friendly towards user's personal tastes, and to my taste the plce from where i would like to control the mapping of a projector would be in the projector's params tab.

And i would like to have the opportunity to toggle in the fields between relative and realscale values. I do not think it would be that complicated to program a way yo do that, right? Less correct maybe, but surely more smoothly intelligible by anybody.

Another down of the new way, is that we have now to keep the material editor tab opened while editing the map's size, and since it is not resizable , checking the changes becomes an unconfortable task. Plus it is not interactive and i have then to quit the texture picker to check the result, and if i do not find it ok i have to reopen it, reedit....and so on.

What do you think then of a poll in the maxwell section of the forum? This way i could realize if it's only me beeing too lazy and dumb or if this is a shared feedback.

[S4BB]

Mihai, thanks for your patience

I believe I now get how the revised projector works, and for me it comes down to a change in work flow that is now more difficult.

I think the default function of the projector should be to 'Normalize' scaling as this is how it happens in the real world. With the current default, the scale of the texture varies by the size of the surface, which is not realistic when dealing with materials. The size of a brick is fixed and does not change scale based on the size of the wall, so when the current projector shows different scale for each surface this seems not to take into consideration that materials being applied my not be able to alter their XY and Z scale, relative to one another, and still look accurate.

In the prior versions of the software it was very easy to scale materials once they had been 'Normalized' to the object, as I would get normal values that were all equal for XY and Z (ie. .4, .4, .4). It was then very easy to scale the material visually, and if I wanted it half the size I would input .2, .2, .2. With the new method I may get values of 66.667, 0.893, 2.778 (after being 'Normalized'), and to now get the size of the texture to half, I have to use math to divide these three different numbers, more work.

I guess by your definition the new method is more accurate, but it does not seem logical when you consider that materials will be applied to the surfaces. For me now it is simply more work and less intuitive then all the prior versions.

[Eric Lagman]

I think the tiling controls that the texture is using should be not only in the mat editior, but the projector settings. Having two windows to control texture mapping is not a good user interface.

[JDHill]

Well, we have global (per-material), and local (per-object) settings - how would you do this with a single window?

[Eric Lagman]

Well, we have global (per-material), and local (per-object) settings - how would you do this with a single window?

Could the per object window have an independent tiling tab that tells how many times the texture is tiled to that specific object projector. Im jumping into this conversation not fully understanding the issue I think. Or is a similar option already there and I am missing something.

Also is there a way to keep the texture proportional to the original image map size? Normalize seems to do this, but like others have said now how do I control the scale if I just want it to be 50% smaller. You have to do the math on all the weird numbers it gives you after you hit normalize. This is why maybe there should be a tiling number feild under each uv parameter list. Now I could just change it from 1 which is what normalize would give me to .5 if I wanted it 50% larger but still proportional. And yes I have used other 3d apps and texture mapping controls. It seems to be more straightforward in programs like Cinema 4d. Hope this helps.

Edit: Here is another quick thought. What about after hitting normalize could there be a check box similar to the camera settings that keep that aspect ratio locked. This way when I change any of the xyz parameters to size the texture all the other numbers change proportionally.

[JDHill]

Could the per object window have an independent tiling tab that tells how many times the texture is tiled to that specific object projector.

Sure, but that's not consolidating the existing two points of size-control (tile x/y & proj. size) into one - it's adding a new per-projector tile modifier. So while it might seem like it would just be a UI change, it is actually something fundamentally different, which would require changes to the engine, mxst, and all the plugins. Even after that, you've gained no actual ability that you don't currently have, i.e. scaling the projector.

There's a reason for a new projector (Cubic, for example) to be created at the size of the object's bounding-box: the only other size it can be automatically be set to is 1x1x1 meters. To demonstrate, let's analyze your idea of creating/constraining a projector so that each side is proportional to the map being used. The main reasons this is not really possible include:

a. can't determine a location for this projector - don't know which of the eight corners should be lined up with which corner of the object's bounding box
b. can't determine which way the map should be oriented on each side of the projector - therefore, can't determine which axis should be set to scale=1.0
c. can't determine the w/h proportion for each side, since there may be any number of maps assigned to this projector's channel

So, while it may feel like a problem of logic, it is actually one of convention - it requires expert (i.e. your) knowledge. It should be easy however, to add a toggle which locks x/y/z scale parameters to one another during modification, and I agree this would be really handy.

[superbad]

You already got the answer: after having normalized the projector, the only thing you can do is calling the material editor and edit the Xtile Ytile values. The alphanumeric standard cardboard in the viewport is projected now by a 1mx1mx1m projector, so if you will input, for instance 0.5,1,2 your texture will be projected as if it was 50cm,1m,2m. We have to begin to think at the X-Yvalues not as adimensional parameters, but as real world units. If the normalized projector is 1x1x1 and i set a value of 0.5 in the X-Y tile field, i am inputting 1mx0.5=50cm.
Maybe it would be then easier to think X-Y tile values as texture's size in meters.

That might be (barely) acceptable if you only had a couple parts in a scene. But like I was explaining, I regularly adjust the scale on hundreds of parts. Every one of those parts has different scale values in X, Y, and Z now, so I would have to do it individually per part. My time is worth more than that.

[superbad]

There's a reason for a new projector (Cubic, for example) to be created at the size of the object's bounding-box: the only other size it can be automatically be set to is 1x1x1 meters. To demonstrate, let's analyze your idea of creating/constraining a projector so that each side is proportional to the map being used. The main reasons this is not really possible include:

a. can't determine a location for this projector - don't know which of the eight corners should be lined up with which corner of the object's bounding box
b. can't determine which way the map should be oriented on each side of the projector - therefore, can't determine which axis should be set to scale=1.0
c. can't determine the w/h proportion for each side, since there may be any number of maps assigned to this projector's channel

So, while it may feel like a problem of logic, it is actually one of convention - it requires expert (i.e. your) knowledge. It should be easy however, to add a toggle which locks x/y/z scale parameters to one another during modification, and I agree this would be really handy.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but I don't understand all the reasoning of how this "can't be done." It was being done already! The fact that the old cubic projector didn't line up consistently with the geometry was an advantage. Now I've got all these perfectly lined up textures, so when I look at the front of a piece of furniture each component has exactly the same woodgrain pattern. I might as well write "fake" on it. So now after individually scaling each projector, I've got to individually move them too. I just can't fathom why anyone was demanding this change, unless they don't actually use Studio.

Why can't we just have another projector? Copy and paste the old cubic projector code, and call it "1m cubic", or "bad old projector only to be used by fools", or "Fred", or whatever you like. 1.6 is a non-starter for me because of this.

[JDHill]

I was specifically referring to:

[the] idea of creating/constraining a projector so that each side is proportional to the map being used.

[Mihai]

I just can't fathom why anyone was demanding this change, unless they don't actually use Studio.

Well you answered this yourself:

The fact that the old cubic projector didn't line up consistently

This wasn't a problem with just the cubic projector, but all projectors. Adjust to object didn't work very well, it was more difficult to do things like decals, RS didn't work in some situations.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm lecturing anybody but I have to explain how it's supposed to work or ignore people....

For your particular situation, you can still use 1.5 just to set up the UVs, materials, and then import the scene into 1.6. The UVs will come in as locked.

Personally I would do things a bit differently, especially when dealing with such objects (much taller than wide). I would not use square textures since I'm wasting a large portion of the texture. I would use textures that are more or less the dimensions of the objects I'm applying the textures to.

[S4BB]

Mihai,

For your particular situation, you can still use 1.5

When is Next Limit going to put 1.5 back up, I have already deleted it based on the recommendation of Next Limit, and I'm glad to hear you say this.

Also, am I reading reading your recommendation correctly, that you believe the best path is to create unique textures, based on proportions, and this is better then the way the projector use to work?

Thanks