One has been having some trouble with UV mapping! All I would like to be able to do, is paint textures onto my mesh, and for them to be painted and look perfectly normal, but whenever one tries to UV map one’s meshes, they turn out all silly! A face on my mesh, might be 4 times as long as it is wide, but then on the 2D texturemator, it often turns out as just a square! Or sometimes, it turns out as a very wonky parallelogram! Or sometimes, its just so small, that on the mesh it looks all pixelly!
I understand that I can resize them and all that on the 2D UV thingamajigle, but surely, there is some way to tell blender, “take every face of this mesh, and outline a shape on the 2D wotsit that is the same size and shape relative to all the other faces, and make sure they don’t overlap”?
You also need to be strategic about both your geometry (as a general rule, try to avoid making long skinny faces in the first place) and the placement of seams on your model. Where on the curve you place those seams will drastically affect how much stretching or squashing is necessary to get the mesh to lie flat.
Good point of Apply scale before, but blender would argue (not too intense, but anyways) about that being off.
You haven’t mentioned anything about setting different seams all over the place… Have you tried that? An attempt to do interactive unwrap? There are some pretty good tuts on this, i just have to dig - have lost track of them atm.
Again, mesh of what exactly or some image would give a clue where to go, what knobs to suggest…
Thanks, everyone!
Ok, I did the scale thing, and it worked fine! Thank you very much, this has been a real problem for me for quite a while now, thank you very much!
Heh, that site is not accurate. I mean, those words are real and have mostly sort of those definitions, but that is not Old English. Heck, it’s not even Middle English. It’s mostly Early Modern. :no: And fullsome is still not a real word, AFAIK. The only places I can find it with that definition are random spots on the internet where anonymous people have posted that definition without citation. Sounds made up to me.
Edit: I dug up a Middle English dictionary, and there is an alternate definition that’s close. “Fulsum (or fulsomme): plenteous or abundant (usually to excess)”
And now we are about as far off topic as we can get. So Gumpert, has our silliness helped you at all?
@K. Horseman: I seem to remember reading a novel in which the heroine was described as “fullsome.” What do you think it meant in that context (heh heh)?
It was mostly innocent at the very beginnings: "“Fulsome is formed from the words full and some, and originally had no bad connotations at all. But, probably because the first syllable was ignorantly associated with the word foul…” before 1250, to “‘gross or excessive, offensive to good taste like flattery’ (1663 to the present)”.
From what I have read, fulsome originally (middle ages) meant abundant or complete ,and that it has come to take on the meaning of excessive/distasteful. Now don’t think for a moment I had any idea of this etymology when I wrote it.
Although in a way, both meanings work in my original context. Gumpert’s Post and even his ‘thank you’ was somewhat distasteful. I rolled my eyes the first time I read it, and I think a lot of you did too.
This is an interesting piece in the NY Times Magazine on the word.
