All posts related to V2
#370030
Ernesto, you relatively ask for something which is absolutely impossible. :)

You have 3 things;
* Real dimension of your texture. (e.g. 33 x 33 cm ceramic tile)
* Object dimension in 3D space.
* UV dimension.

First of all, depending on UV mapping of your object, 33 cm distance may not always allocate the same 2D space.
Let's say you have a floor 3.3 x 3.3 m floor. So, you need 10 x 10 = 100 tiles to cover this floor. Right? OK.

Relative Method is:
* Assign texture to the floor and set tiling repeat to 10. (assuming UV Scale = 1, which means texture is stretched to full floor)

Now... How did we figure we should set repeat to 10?
Code: Select all
Repeat = Object Size / Texture Size * UV Scale
       = 3.30 / 0.33 * 1
       = 10
As you see it's not possible to evaluate it otherwise because, Object Size involved in this formula and it's unknown to the material without your help.

Absolute Method is:
* Assign texture to the floor and set tiling repeat to 0.33.
Code: Select all
Repeat = Texture Size * UV Scale
       = 0.33 * 1
       = 0.33
And here, Object Size doesn't matter but, it's still tied to the UV Scale and it can work correctly only if the unit edge of the object's UV space equals to 1 m.
#370074
Tom,
and Mihai, before you read this, get rid of all preconcepts, and open your mind.

You are not understyanding the Real Scale materials working method.
All you say is right, and preciselly because you are not working with Real Scale materials, you do not need any conversion.
If you work in relative mode, there is No reason to have any conversion to anything.

Now, I will explain once more the Real Scale working method:
First, we can see that The Maxwell Material editor is currently limited to Relative / Meters modes.
This is a strong limitation for users, and could be easily solved by Next Limit.
This is also very confusing since Relative is a mode, but Meters is a unit. We are mixing two diferent things.

The proposed change, is to get rid of the Relative / Meters option, which is rather confusing.
Instead, I propose an option Relative / Absolute option. Both options are modes, and we are not mixing them with units.

In the Relative mode, you (tom) and Mihai could work the way you like, and apparently for what I have read from your points of views, you will never (or perhaps very rarely) change to absolute mode, since you are confortable with the Relative mode. You have nothing to worry about, since everything will work the same way you are experiencing right now, if in Relative mode.

Having said this, now I will explain the great benefit for other users that works in the architectural marquet, and may prefer using the Absolute mode.

The second change in the UI has to do with units. Once the user made the choise to absolute mode, the word REPEAT should be changed by MEASUREMENTS, since the values in those boxes will be expressed in the selected unit.
The third change should be a Units Selector, that could be changed from INCHES, FEET, METERS, CENTIMETERS, MILIMETERS, and perhaps DECIMETERS if you like. This selector should be linked to the data in the measurements Boxes, in a way, the REAL SCALE of the material will be unaltered, when changing the UNITS.

For instance, if I have a material definition that a user in the USA gave to me, it will be surely in INCHES. Lets assume the Image map was 24 x 24 inches, and it represents a real tileable material which should be repeated at that size.
As I work in Meters, what I can do is just change the units, and automatically the measurements box will convert the values so that the Real Scale of the material will remain unaltered, this is 0.60m x 0.60m (24In x 0.025416m = 0.60m)
If I want to thank my friend sending a good material, it will be surely in Meters, and on the other side it could be easily and automatically converted to inches by selecting the desired unit.

Up to here, there shouldn´t be any problem understanding the logic.
But now you could find an unclear area, but let me explain again that this is for users that works with REAL SCALE materials, and cannot and should not be analized from the viewpoints of users working in REALATIVE mode, that will never deal with REAL SCALE MATERIALS specific mechanism.

When REAL SCALE materias was not an option, users had to find ways to work with constant measurements.
In order to do so, Architectural users worked in RELATIVE mode, but assigned a constant UV to all the 3d model of the desired UNIT. in my case 1 x 1 meter.
Then If I had a tileable brick map that represents a square of 2 by 2 meters, I had to enter in the REPEAT boxes = 0.5 x 0.5 in order to have a REAL SCALE MATERIAL to work with.
There are many libraries already set this way.
Then, for REAL SCALE MATERIAL users there is a relationship between the RELATIVE mode and the ABSOLUTE mode, although there is NOT such a relationship from the viewpoint of Clasic users using RELATIVE mode only.
This relationship, could be automated in the same way as the simple mechanism when changing from one unit, to the other.

Here I will write an example:
In my case of the previous Brick material, I had a REPEAT values of 0,5 x 0,5. So as soon as the user changes to ABSOLUTE mode in METERS those boxes will change the word REPEAT to MEASUREMENT, and the values should be automatically converted to 2 x 2 meters.

Again, I want to insist that RELATIVE mode users will not have to deal with this since they will stay in the RELATIVE mode where there will not be any UNIT nor any CONVERSION.

I hope this is UNDERSTANDABLE enough.


Ernesto
#370082
I agree with everything except this:
In my case of the previous Brick material, I had a REPEAT values of 0,5 x 0,5. So as soon as the user changes to ABSOLUTE mode in METERS those boxes will change the word REPEAT to MEASUREMENT, and the values should be automatically converted to 2 x 2 meters.
In your example it will work because you start with a fixed UV mapping to 1x1 but that may not be the case and the mxm knows nothing about what UV is applied to the object.

I don't think there's a usual way of UV mapping which fits to everybody so I don't see the point in making any conversion. I usually prefer to leave repeat to 1 in mxm and change uv in modeler app which is interactive and faster for me. It's just your preference to use 1x1 UVs.
#370085
Your experiences in this forum and with the software differ a lot from mine Ernesto. Probably it's just about a different way of facing problems or a different way of treating people.
Ernesto wrote:Mihai,

You are wrong.
I am assuming that when...
This way of replying tends to discourage people to give you proper answers to your questions. Deleting "You are wrong" would fix the problem or maybe saying something like "May I disagree?"
No, UNFORTUNATELY it is NOT possible!
When somebody tells you he's done something and worked and you answer that, you are invalidating that helper's experience and closing yourself to any possible solution. "I didn't manage to make it work here" would fit better.

You may say those are just words but they are transmitting your respect or disrespect to others and many other subtle but important aspects of a conversation.
#370105
Fernando Tella wrote:I agree with everything except this:
In my case of the previous Brick material, I had a REPEAT values of 0,5 x 0,5. So as soon as the user changes to ABSOLUTE mode in METERS those boxes will change the word REPEAT to MEASUREMENT, and the values should be automatically converted to 2 x 2 meters.
In your example it will work because you start with a fixed UV mapping to 1x1 but that may not be the case and the mxm knows nothing about what UV is applied to the object.

I don't think there's a usual way of UV mapping which fits to everybody so I don't see the point in making any conversion. I usually prefer to leave repeat to 1 in mxm and change uv in modeler app which is interactive and faster for me. It's just your preference to use 1x1 UVs.
Maybe Ernesto is only working with planes and boxes so, I understand him.
#370108
Yep, architecture stuff is mainly planes and boxes and I see the point of specifying the measure of the texture in the mxm and using 1x1 UVs so you don't have to remember the measure of the texture every time you place it. What I don't get is the need to make a conversion, use one method or the other once you are setting up the material. If any conversion had to be done it would be that, but I don't see the point.

Apart from that, I also do mostly architectural stuff but don't like using real scale as I usually introduce small variations to the size of the texture to adapt it to the model or just use the same material for different scales.


Edit: Rethinking it a bit... It would be useful to have the conversion exactly in my example; when you have a real scale material and want to turn it to relative mode to make interactive small variations to the size of the texture applied to the model.

I remember now why I don't use real scale mode. I think it's one of those automatisms that complicates things more than helps. Instead, if I want to remember the size of the mapping of a texture I just type it at the info box.
#370115
Fernando Tella wrote:Yep, architecture stuff is mainly planes and boxes and I see the point of specifying the measure of the texture in the mxm and using 1x1 UVs so you don't have to remember the measure of the texture every time you place it. What I don't get is the need to make a conversion, use one method or the other once you are setting up the material. If any conversion had to be done it would be that, but I don't see the point. Apart from that, I also do mostly architectural stuff but don't like using real scale as I usually introduce small variations to the size of the texture to adapt it to the model or just use the same material for different scales. Edit: Rethinking it a bit... It would be useful to have the conversion exactly in my example; when you have a real scale material and want to turn it to relative mode to make interactive small variations to the size of the texture applied to the model. I remember now why I don't use real scale mode. I think it's one of those automatisms that complicates things more than helps. Instead, if I want to remember the size of the mapping of a texture I just type it at the info box.
When you are trying to show a client, a building that is going to be built, it is important that the diferent materials are the exact real size. There is no need to adjust the materials to the model, because doing that would be faking the real size of the material. That is not an option, in the architectural market, because you would be transmiting a not realistic image. Most of the time, Images serves for two purposes; 1) for the designers to correct possible issues, and 2) for clients to understand how they will look. In both cases, it is way important that the image would represent the real thing, other wise Designer could take wrong conclusions, and Client could perceive a distorted image, and when they will discover the mistake, it will be too late.

Ernesto
#370118
Fernando Tella wrote:Edit: Rethinking it a bit... It would be useful to have the conversion exactly in my example; when you have a real scale material and want to turn it to relative mode to make interactive small variations to the size of the texture applied to the model.

I remember now why I don't use real scale mode. I think it's one of those automatisms that complicates things more than helps. Instead, if I want to remember the size of the mapping of a texture I just type it at the info box.
I think you're correct to stay away from it.

However useful it may be, as I've written in another recent thread (about a rough sea texture), my fundamental problem with real scale is that it is really nothing more than a texture making a promise it can't keep. It works out for it to do that, when there is also some other code present, which is able to help it fulfill the promise, by enforcing proper UVs for objects using the texture (this is non-trivial, and sometimes impossible, depending on how the UV-generation facilities of the host application work, assuming it is also expected that the host viewport be capable of predicting what will be rendered in Maxwell). But when there isn't, this creates a problem, since Maxwell, upon seeing the flag, can only assume that appropriate UVs have been applied.

This problem occurs long before we ever get to discussing whether textures using absolute repeat values should use meters, or some other unit, or should include a built-in unit-conversion calculator. Those things only add to the eventual confusion, when the texture's promise is not able to be honored.

So I say: the way to handle this is to make sure the promise is not allowed to leak out of a given environment, which means removing the flag from textures in MXM files. It would be fine for it to still exist in any given plugin, or in Studio, and in each case, it would then be possible for the code actually implementing it to define how it works, whether that be as it does now (a flag on a texture), or by means of some other method.
#370119
Fernando Tella wrote:
Your experiences in this forum and with the software differ a lot from mine Ernesto. Probably it's just about a different way of facing problems or a different way of treating people.
Ernesto wrote:Mihai, You are wrong. I am assuming that when...
This way of replying tends to discourage people to give you proper answers to your questions. Deleting "You are wrong" would fix the problem or maybe saying something like "May I disagree?"
No, UNFORTUNATELY it is NOT possible!
When somebody tells you he's done something and worked and you answer that, you are invalidating that helper's experience and closing yourself to any possible solution. "I didn't manage to make it work here" would fit better. You may say those are just words but they are transmitting your respect or disrespect to others and many other subtle but important aspects of a conversation.
If somebody tells me that I am wrong, I wouldn´t feel bad. Being wrong is part of being human. Human beings are not perfect. I would never think that I am a worse person just for being wrong. But knowing that I could be wrong is an invaluable opportunity to correct it. That is why I think when somebody says "this is wrong", he or she should include a detailed explanation, in order to express, where is the mistake. Once I read an explanation, I could realize I was wrong, and I will never hide it. I can accept that I was wrong all the time, without feeling bad. In fact it is the oposite! I will feel thankfull for receiving an explanation on a wrong previous point of view, because it is an oportunity to learn.
Only people that cannot accept they could be wrong, close the door to learning, and will take any correction as an offense.

The matter here is the software, so we shouldn´t take things personal. We are supposed to be focused on the software, and I assume there are no personal feelings involved, as far as we can be respectfull for others. If I believe 2 by 2 is 4, I cannot say, "in my opinion, it is 4, but I respect others oppinions saying that it is 5", because this will be an obstacle to understand, and all we will get is more confusion. Some things are not subject to opinions, but are a base knowledge to start with.

It is Not a sin, to disagree! We all have the right to disagree. Civilized discusion get to new solutions.
Uniform thinking just get to degradation, and close the door to improvement.

Ernesto
#370380
Maybe Ernesto is only working with planes and boxes so, I understand him.
Exactlyest! First of all, the history of human architecture, spanning over 500.000 years, has shown that any non-planar surface is, after all, nothing but an ideosyncratic outburst of the overzealous self and hence has no place in contemporary design. Second, the cube is, on average, composed from six planes, so, in fact, 3D modelling software could be much simplified. Third, all buildings should be painted white so as to fulfil Adolf Loos' vision from 1908 to avoid trouncing the human mind with unnecessary detail and decoration. The material system in MR could therefore be streamlined for maximum efficiency to the benefit of all users and userettes.

Thanks Miguel I know 5.2+ is a big development hi[…]

SketchUp 2021 Update

Hi Alberto, Many thanks for taking the time to ma[…]

Let's talk about Maxwell 5.2

Features are closed and tested, we are testing p[…]

Materials Library not working

Yeah. We have changed to a new website on a new se[…]