there is no such thing as a “UV Texture”. UV’s are a set of coordinates to translate from texture space to object space, nothing else. If using a texture in UV editor shows up in 3D-viewport as well, that’s just convenience. To get something to render, you’ll need a material (and add a proper texture or press “texFace”).
um, i kinda use the term “UV Texture” to denote an image that is used as the color/nor/spec whatever for a UV Layout. Without a material, an image that is used as the color for a non-materialized mesh that has been UV unwrapped i call a UV Texture. You can re-gag me now, I’ve had a drink of water.
Well, I wouldn’t want to talk anyone out of using the term “UV texture” for an image texture that is mapped via UV-coordinates. But I’m trying to avoid any confusion between a texture and the mapping thereof, because this is a frequent source of trouble. At least every third day someone complains about unwrapping his/her mesh in the UV editor but not seeing any texture in the render…(“but why, I did assign a UV-texture”). Hence my reservations against a potentially misleading term.
As long as we can agree that UV-maps are a property of meshes and image textures may use them as source of coordinates, everything is fine. (Bonds not cutting, I hope?)
storms out there resetting your connection? too bad. sounds like i (or you) could have cut and pasted into the wiki as good explanation. sorry. you can comment on my video tutorials though, they might cheer you up.!
and yes, BartleBySmurf, I modified the wiki writeup as per Broken’s request to further clarify and eschew TexFace…so maybe we move on to every fourth day…
Agreed, but I’d avoid the term “UV Mapped materials” as well, because one mesh could use several materials. And one material can refer to several textures (<=10) and each of this texture channels could be using a different mapping (Map Input Tab).
To minimize confusion, I suggest the following terms: UV-coordinates, UV-mapping, UV-layout. Something missing?
um…yeah…what do you call the image that is not a picture, not a tileable image, but is an image specifically drawn to use and is mapped to color, bump, spec, or alpha etc a material? This strikes me as a very old argument I had with myself year(s?) ago when writing/rewriting the wiki http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/UV_Unwrapping_And_Texturing and there forward. I tried to be very consistent and distinctive when describing all this:
UV Coordinate: the corresponding UV point to a Vertex
UV Map: a set of UV coordinates which are mapped to faces for a single unwrap
UV Unwrapping: the process of creating a UV Map
UV Layout: an optimized set of UV Maps (aka islands) for a mesh.
UV Texture: An image specifically used for a UV Layout. It may provide color, bump (Nor or Disp), alpha, AO, etc (collectively mostly called Render Passes) information for the UV Layout. It may have an alpha channel. It may be layered with other UV Textures. See also CD38’s http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/Render_Bake
I didn’t know we were beating dead SmurfHorses here, but I should have imagined. So - sorry for the inconvenience, horses.
How to call a texture that is specifically made to be used with a certain UV-layout, like for the typical game model? Usually I just call them “texture” or “image texture”, but then the UV-bit needs to be explained in context. Not the perfect solution, I know…
Actually, I don’t mind saying “UV texture” as long as nobody gets confused. But I did have lengthy discussions with people who held the firm belief an image texture must be somehow part of the mesh. Others are convinced that by creating a UV-layout a texture will be assigned magically. To these UV-heathens the word of a “UV texture” is sweet poison to nurture their erroneous and vile beliefs. The concept of UV-maps being just a set of coordinates is somehow too simple to be accepted. Most recent example of a discussion revolving around this point: http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?t=99218
Looking through your list of terms, PapaSmurf, they’re certainly distinctive, but one is sticking out: The first four all relate to the actual coordinates (to just one of them, an island, the entirety of UVs). But the fifth term - UV texture - relates to an image file that is not part of the UV’s and only indirectly related. That’s the culprit, I think.
A UV-mapped texture that is used for a different channel than color is often called “map”, like in bump-map, normal-map, alpha-map, specular-map. The matching term would be diffuse-map or color-map. Sounds a bit alien to me, but one can get used to anything, they say.
yes, the image though, is not the map. the image is separate from the map. the image is used as a texture, in a texture channel. it is a UV-mapped Texture, or UV Texture for short, since it is so hard to type all of that with these stupid white gloves on. in fact, a bump-map and an diffuse-map can be totally different UV Layouts, and of course will be different images. Unless they mean “-map” is the image and the UV Layout together, but hey, the Blender panel calls it UV Texture, so I’m sticking with it.
When I don’t use UV mapping, I use procedural textures. So I look at this question as “what is a non-procedural texture?” I generally think of them as “mapped” or “painted” depending on whether I have to plug in my wacom tablet or just use filters. Maybe Gimp textures? Or Photoshop textures? External textures? (of course, that doesn’t work, with Blender’s ability to paint textures internally.)
Good question, ititrx. It’s hard to write about something that doesn’t have an agreed upon common name.