Author Topic: Does it matter how rubbish are the UVs if I use triplanar?  (Read 1308 times)

For some dense and complicated meshes I apply auto UV in the 3D package, and I get something for UVs.
Is it just a requirement to have UVs? and if I use triplanar does it matter how rubbish are the UVs?

Why do you texture such a high resolution mesh directly in the first place? Whats the intended usage? Create a retopology mesh, and bake the details onto it.

It is a requirement in Painter to have UVs, of course. There is no case where you might want rubbish UVs.

Thanks. It's not for a game. It's for scattering on a large terrain.
Now I've changed and do the UV mapping on the low poly, but I still get kind of rubbish UVs. The thing is I use auto UV's.
With auto UVs in any 3D package we can tweak some parameters but we have limit control, so there is always going to be some rubbish in the UVs, the question is should I worry about that if I use triplanar?
Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 12:27:26 pm

Well you need to learn to do manual UV unwrapping if the auto tools are not good enough for your needs.

FYI, that mesh has way too many tris to be a "low poly" model...
I teach people how to use Substance Painter. :)

I also want to have great UVs, but with some 50 different rocks (of this kind) to scatter around a large terrain, getting good UVs manually is balanced with the huge amount of time I will spend on manual UV of these 50 rocks.
In this case, will substance painter (using triplanar) give me rubbish textures back because I've given him rubbish UVs?

UVs are easy for rocks, pick the sides, upwrap, and modify the density of the shells as needed. If you have a proper low poly version cutting is easy.

If you're going to go with Triplanar for the textures, make sure your uvs have good density per face.
Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 02:27:23 pm
I teach people how to use Substance Painter. :)