We are going to add support for Linux and Mac as soon as possible, unfortunately I cannot provide an ETA for now.
Do you mean “Manual Groups” from UVPM 2? Manual grouping was in fact significantly improved in UVPM 3 - you can now create a grouping scheme with a set of named groups and assign UVs to the groups in a similar manner as in UVPM 2. You can also export such a grouping scheme to an external file, so you can easily import the scheme in a different blend file.
For more info on grouping schemes, refer to this page in the documentation.
Thanks for answer.
Yes, manual grouping :). But as I understand, this scheme is for assigning these groups to UV tiles, right?
I mean if it’s possible just to have groups only for organizating purpose, selecting etc. Not affecting any uv packing feature
I am not sure how you used manual groups in UVPM 2 exactly. Just keep in mind that every functionality of manual groups in UVPM 2 is also present in UVPM 3 grouping schemes: assigning, selecting, deselecting etc.
Of course you can accidentally make group assignment to affect the packing process (it’s its main purpose, isn’t it?), but note that it was also the case for UVPM 2, so I do not exactly get a difference here.
Hi glukoz! Congratulations on another release! Instantly upgraded after I saw the email (took me a while, haha), but I’m on linux so I haven’t been able to check out version 3 yet. Just wanted to say thanks for working on this, UVP has always been one of my favorite tools in the arsenal!
P.S. Your upgrade policy is way too generous considering how good your product is and how much mind-numbing repetition it saves me. You totally could have asked for more and I wouldn’t have blinked. We need to keep you motivated!
Regarding our upgrade policy: so, the general rule is that the user has to pay only the difference between the new version price and the amount they already paid. And to be honest I cannot imagine we do not follow this rule.
Now I agree that the UVPM 2 → UVPM 3 upgrade policy is even more beneficial for users who purchased UVPM 2 long before (when it was less expensive) but keep in mind that this special offer is limited in time and soon it will not be available at all (one will have to pay the difference in prices in order to upgrade).
UV validation was added as a native Blender feature some time ago. In the UV editor check the Select menu → Overlap.
I’ve been thinking about buying UVPM3, I’m currently paying for RizumUV and would like to know if there is any general road map or general functionality that might get added later down the line like tools to deal with stretching or unwrapping or more general UV tools.
I understand this may be hard to answer but i don’t want to be stuck in a position where i pay for something (That is not cheap when converting to my currency) and never using it.
That being said i don’t expect a 1 to 1 with Rizum it has a lot of tools i don’t use.
If you really can’t answer at all that’s ok as well, i will just wait and if it gets updated with tools i think can let me replace Rizum ill buy at that time.
Unfortunately I cannot share our general road map for the product development.
It would be great, if you could send me the list of features you would like to be implemented in the tool to [email protected]. We take every suggestion into consideration.
Does the engine for 3.0 is not portable anymore?
I have issues setting engine path on multiple machines with the same blender config.
It means whenever I need to update anything I will need to update engine on every machine manually vs using repository.
No changes were introduced to the engine path logic - it should behave in the same way as UVPM 2.
Assuming that you install the engine using the exe installer (as it should be the case as it is the only official method now), then the engine path setup is independent from the Blender config - the addon should always detect the path automatically, no matter what your Blender settings are.
Maybe I am missing something about your use case (what you are trying to achieve). Write to me at [email protected] with more details.
1 Like
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
903
I’m still waiting patiently for the Linux rev, doing this whole passive aggressive thing in an obvious attempt to guilt trip you.
hi i would like to ask a feature for align/stacking islands, today i was working with a symmetrical model (hence symmetrical uvs will result) and then i wanted to stack the similar island but didnt work for me, until i mirrored manually one of the islands (either y or x axis) and the tool worked wonderfully after that, but would be nice that the islands that are symmetrical like this, can be automatically mirrored if necessary to match the uvs…
i also wanna say about stacking -
1.there should be an option to set main uv on top of which all similar uvs will be stacked (for know its kinda random process)
Sorta bumping this again. I’d really love to see this in the next/future version if possible.
To try to auto orient islands based on the mesh. I have to manually rotate islands all the time, to get UVs to flow a certain way now, so this feature could save alot of time
Thank you for your feedback! There is an option for that already - ‘Align Priority’.
If you are getting incorrect results when stacking, please send me a blend file with a minimal model to [email protected] - it will significantly simplify the debugging process.
Hi.
Proportional islands packing, is it possible?
In many cases, to save texture space, I have to pack some geometry parts (partially hidden or distant) with less Texel dencity. I use Texel Dencity Checker addon, usually set some texel dencity value for important geometry, and half or 30% for unimportant parts. Would like to be able to pack UVs while keeping proportion of UV islands.
