Author Topic: Why doesn't my exported SP texture is not fully matching over and between seams?  (Read 464 times)


Apprently the UVW mapping is fine, but the exported texture from SP in 3dsMax does not appear to be matching over and between seams..why is that and how can I fix it?

Did you export the normal map in the correct format (OpenGL/ DirectX)? Try to open up the normal map in Photoshop, and invert the green channel. Might fix the seam issue.

UV layout looks funky to me though, looks like some automatic unwrap. Always do it manually, place seams where they are least visible, and make sure the UV islands are not rotated in some random fashion.
Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 10:30:17 am

Did you export the normal map in the correct format (OpenGL/ DirectX)? Try to open up the normal map in Photoshop, and invert the green channel. Might fix the seam issue.

UV layout looks funky to me though, looks like some automatic unwrap. Always do it manually, place seams where they are least visible, and make sure the UV islands are not rotated in some random fashion.
Thanks, Yes I did, I don't know what was wrong on my previous texturing test attempt but this time around I picked 4k res and used the height map for the bump and it all looks perfect now (perhaps I was using the wrong map for the bump effect so it looked messed up).

The orientation of your UVs are not the same, thus generating seams in your normals. Allign them more closely and the results will be better.

Do note, the errors are also visible (though barely) in your second image; much less strong though because it seems the UVs in that one are more alligned.
Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 02:04:38 pm

The orientation of your UVs are not the same, thus generating seams in your normals. Allign them more closely and the results will be better.

Do note, the errors are also visible (though barely) in your second image; much less strong though because it seems the UVs in that one are more alligned.

It is impossible to orient the groups of separated UVs perfectly the same direction, but I don't think it matters, what matters is that the mapping is not stretched (squares means its ok) also I don't see any errors over the seams area, it is perfect, I'de appreciate it if you could mark it with red line so I could get an idea as to what errors you exactly refer to since frankly I can't see any on the 2nd image.

The orientation of your UVs are not the same, thus generating seams in your normals. Allign them more closely and the results will be better.

Do note, the errors are also visible (though barely) in your second image; much less strong though because it seems the UVs in that one are more alligned.

It is impossible to orient the groups of separated UVs perfectly the same direction, but I don't think it matters, what matters is that the mapping is not stretched (squares means its ok) also I don't see any errors over the seams area, it is perfect, I'de appreciate it if you could mark it with red line so I could get an idea as to what errors you exactly refer to since frankly I can't see any on the 2nd image.

I've chosen green and it is very vague indeed but UV orientation does actually matter for your normals.


The orientation of your UVs are not the same, thus generating seams in your normals. Allign them more closely and the results will be better.

Do note, the errors are also visible (though barely) in your second image; much less strong though because it seems the UVs in that one are more alligned.

It is impossible to orient the groups of separated UVs perfectly the same direction, but I don't think it matters, what matters is that the mapping is not stretched (squares means its ok) also I don't see any errors over the seams area, it is perfect, I'de appreciate it if you could mark it with red line so I could get an idea as to what errors you exactly refer to since frankly I can't see any on the 2nd image.

I've chosen green and it is very vague indeed but UV orientation does actually matter for your normals.


I just can't see what is wrong with it, it looks fairly ok to me, even if you are right and there are some flaws with the mapping of the texture then I guess it is fine since it is so small and insignificant and vague as you say, so I am ok with that (BTW I tested it and apparently the smaller the resolution of the painting the more issues it has between the seams, no matter how good the mapping is, so at 1st that is why I had that issue so visually noticable since I was painting on 1k res' and then when I painted on 4k res the issue was gone).