Larry-L: UV mapping of the object has nothing to do with the dimensions or aspect ratio of the texture map. The UV coordinates are values from 0 to 1 on the U and V axes. The pixel in the lower left corner being 0,0 and one in the upper right being 1,1 - all points in between are decimal numbers like 0.02376981, 0.52096723. Through simple mathematics, a 3D rendering program will take ANY texture map of any dimensions or aspect ratio and apply the lower left pixel to UV coordinate 0,0 and the upper right pixel to UV coordinate 1,1 and all in-between values to their corresponding equivalent. So it does not matter whether your map is 512x512 or 2048x2048 or 300x900 or 3456x7654 or whatever, it will be UV mapped according to the relationships established in the UVs of the geometry, and not by the texture coordinates. In other words, UV coordinates are based on PERCENTAGES and not on pixel points - this is why they are called U and V rather than X and Y. So UV coordinates represent the location by describing what percent (expressed as decimal values) a point is between 0,0 and 1,1. It is really easy to visualize if you think about describing a point on an image map that is 15% up from the bottom and 25% across from the left. The dimensions of the map itself would not matter because the percentages would always point to the same location of the map regardless of its dimensions or aspect ratio. Jade_nyc: I think the point being made here is about things like V3 eye textures that are being distributed at 1024x1024, but they are nothing more than a 256x256 map that has been scaled up. That is just a waste. And who needs a 1024x1024 eye texture anyway if the head texture is 4000x4000 then a 256x256 eye map would be about the same scale (talking about 3rd Gen Mil figures with separate eye maps not 2nd gen where the eyes are on the head map - boy what a WASTE that is to have separate eye textures that are 95% white space - I wonder whose DUMB idea that was?)