[Ernesto]

As far as I understand the option RELATIVE / METERS in the material definition changes the way the user enters the mapping data.
So, if in RELATIVE mode a user may choose a value of X= 0,5 and y= 0,5, when switching to real scale in Meters, it should change to X= 2 and y= 2 in order to keep the materials settings unaltered.
Currently this is not taken into account in the Material Editor Interface, and by changing the MODE (RELATIVE / METERS) it changes the material definition also.
It would be safer, if the entered values could be updated automatically, in order to keep the material unchanged unvoluntarily in case the user decides to change the MODE from Relative to Meters or viceversa.

Ernesto

[Mihai]

Whether it should be changed to 2, or some other value when you switch to Meters, depends entirely on the size of the object you are applying the material to. If it's a football field, or a ceramic tile...there is really no relationship between relative and absolute mapping.

[Ernesto]

Mihai,

You are wrong.
I am assuming that when in Real Scale mode (Meters) the UVs were set to 100cm x 100cm x 100cm, then, the example says if in relative mode, the right values (for a certain material) are of X= 0,5 and y= 0,5, when switching to real scale in Meters, they should change to X= 2 and y= 2 in order to keep the materials settings unaltered.

To make it clearer: if i have a map, showing a brick wall section of 50cm x 50cm, if i work in Relative mode, I should enter the values for x= 2 and y=2 in order to keep the scale.
If i change to Real Scale mode in Meters it should be changed to X=0,5 and y=0,5
If we would have a Real Scale mode in inches, it should be changed to X=24 and y=24 (in this case the UV should be set at 1 inch x 1 inch) In Feet should be changed to X=2 and y=2 (and Uvs should be 1 f x 1 f)

In that way, we could interchange real scale material definitions made in any system, to be used in any other system.
I am not inventing anything new, this is the way it works in other architectural renderers.

It could be added more units as Milimeters, Centimeters, Inches, Feet, Meters.
Each option should need a square UV of the correspondent unit.
Architects work in Meters or in Inches, but Interior designers works in Cm or Milimeters, most Industrial designers works in Milimeters, Urban Planners in the USA prefer Feet.
In my opinion this would make Maxwell more universal.

To be more detailed, the user interface should provide an option of RELATIVE / ABSOLUTE instead of Relative / Meter
Once selected ABSOLUTE, it should add a UNITS option where you should be able to choose between all the diferent units.
And the word REPEAT should be changed to MEASUREMENT in the ABSOLUTE mode.
In that way, it would be perfect!

E

[Mihai]

Example 1:

- I have a table and a wood texture. The table is 5m long

- I apply this wood texture in relative mode (meaning if I set the tiling to 1.0, it tiles the entire texture once across the whole object (if the UVs are set to encompass the whole object)).

- I tile the texture 8x, which in this particular case (using a certain texture and a certain size of object) looks ok.

- Now I switch to absolute scale. According to your proposal, what should the tiling be auto-changed to, in order for it to look the same?

Example 2:

- I have a wooden cube 25cm big. I use the same wood texture as above.

- I tile it 1x in relative mode which makes it look good on this object.

- Acording to your proposal, what should the tiling be auto-changed to, in order for it to look the same?

[Ernesto]

No, it does not work that way...
What you do is adjusting the texture to the object, so that it looks ok, and for this use the best mode is RELATIVE.
You will never need to change to ABSOLUTE mode in such examples.

The way architects work, is diferent: We have materials that have certain caracteristics that cannot be adjusted to any object, because they will not be realistic. Those materials needs fixed measurements, accordingly to Maker´s specs.

For instance a roof tile. I cannot adjust a roof tile map each time I have a diferent roof, since it would be a lot of work, and I will run the risk to distort the scale of the material.

So we have maps, that shows for instance a section of a roof, with the tiles, that is for instance 1.50 meters by 2.00 meters, to fit the material specifications.

Then we set an UV of 1 by 1 (in case of working in Meters) and the material definition under the RELATIVE mode will be as follows: x=0.33 , y= 0.5

Then If I want to change to ABSOLUTE mode in Meters, it should be changed to : x=1,50 , y= 2,00

Ernesto

[JDHill]

Real scale should not be extended, it should be sent to the deepest, darkest depths of hell, and made to have rusty needles poked into its eyes for all of eternity.

Or, it could be killed, and reincarnated as a proper button, with a proper one-shot function, which is to find all objects referencing the current texture, and ask the relevant authorities (i.e. Studio, or the host application, on behalf of a plugin) to please generate some specific-sized UVs for each referencing object. Plugins where that was possible would implement the button, UVs would once again be properties solely of meshes, and all would be right with the world.

[Ernesto]

JDHill, do you use real scale materials?

E

[JDHill]

Yes, why?

[Polyxo]

Real scale should not be extended, it should be sent to the deepest, darkest depths of hell, and made to have rusty needles poked into its eyes for all of eternity.

JDHill, do you use real scale materials?

Yes, why?

hehe...

[Mihai]

Then we set an UV of 1 by 1 (in case of working in Meters) and the material definition under the RELATIVE mode will be as follows: x=0.33 , y= 0.5

Then If I want to change to ABSOLUTE mode in Meters, it should be changed to : x=1,50 , y= 2,00

Ernesto

Ernesto, the least I can say is you have a talent for complicating your workflow for no real added benefit.

Then we set an UV of 1 by 1

First of all, if you do this you are already working in "absolute" tiling, because you have scaled the UVs to 1x1m. That's really what this absolute tiling setting does. That's all it does. So if you want to work with real size textures, why would you want to first change the UV themselves to 1x1m, when the only thing you have to do is set the tiling in the texture itself to absolute, and this will take care of scaling the objects UVs to 1x1m? It's not a question of starting to work with relative tiling, then suddenly wanting to switch to absolute tiling. It's either/or really.

So, if you have a texture/object combo where you want to control the tiling of the texture using a real scale UV (in our case 1x1m), instead of using an arbitrary UV scale (hence the word relative), just set the tiling to absolute and be happy.

[Ernesto]

1)Just to make possible an interchange standard.

2)Also to make Maxwell more suitable for users in other units. (Today the UI is limited to Meters)

I work for both markets, and it would be great to be able to use the same material libraries for both units: meters and inches.
And they will not be limited to other units. In case someone wants to provide an architectural material library, that will be compatible with all units. Anyway there are many added benefits as you can see.

Ernesto

[Ernesto]

So if you want to work with real size textures, why would you want to first change the UV themselves to 1x1m, when the only thing you have to do is set the tiling in the texture itself to absolute, and this will take care of scaling the objects UVs to 1x1m

Here I have a doubt: Do you mean that if I have a model with standard UV (not 1m x 1m) I could use materials in the absolute mode in Meters without adjusting the UV of the object to 1m x 1m?

Ernesto

A few minutes later:
The answer is NO. I have just made a little test in Maya, and it is not working the way you are suggesting (which would be great) but it is necesary to set an UV of 1 by 1 to use Real Scale Materials.

Ernesto

[Mihai]

The way it works in Studio is that if you apply a material with a texture that uses absolute tiling, it will ask you if you want to modify the UVs to 1x1m so that the texture works/tiles as expected.

In case of Maya, you just asked about this a few days ago in the Maya forum (http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... 01&t=40770) and got a pretty clear reply. Based on that, I don't see how your suggestion is relevant in either case. Letting users specify a different unit for the absolute tiling is a completely separate thing (which would open its own giant can of worms) and again I don't see how your suggestion would help here.

[Ernesto]

Ok Mihai, Forget it! You are right and all the other software developpers are wrong!

E

[Fernando Tella]

3dsmax works as Mihai says. Maybe this video about 3dsmax real world mapping scale helps in clarifying this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS4WXGUu ... r_embedded

The fact is when your mapping is set to real world scale it creates a 1x1x1 mapping cube so when your texture is also set to real scale it will measure exactly what you specify in the "repeat" boxes. Remember you have to specify real scale both at the texture and the uvw mapping.

I guess Maya works in a similar way.