Well, I've been meaning to stop here...;)

I've been modeling for (oh my) about 8 years, with varying levels of quality...;)  I'm mainly using Wings 3d, but I think this is more of a generic question, relating to any modeler...

How the @#$% do you get your textures to look so good?...;)  I've been able to UVMap for some time, but the 'density' (level of detail) of textures seems to be (to coin a phrase) all over the map.

I've looked at some of the texture packs that have been offered here, and tried some of them, but the thing I'm after is detail (I have a theory that the secret to modeling isn't loads of fiddly bits on the object file; it's a straightforward object with really finely detailed textures)

I've seen bunches of psd files, for those lucky enough to afford Photoshop (I have Gimp, which limits me, but whaddayawantforfree?...;)

Are you creating the texture files from scratch; are there URLS of 'insanely great' textures out there, or is the secret using lots of different textures on just a few polys?

If there are some good texturing tutorials out there (for detailed texturing), point me that way. If I ever figure out how to make Hexagon not supply me with 'bell shaped blobs', I'll try using that.

If there are programs I should look into? (Have Paintshop pro, Gimp, Corel Draw, 'something that starts with an M', and probably many more...;), I'm all ears, as the Ferengi say...;)

Thanks, appreciated already...;)

Quote - ... I've looked at some of the texture packs that have been offered here, and tried some of them, but the thing I'm after is detail (I have a theory that the secret to modeling isn't loads of fiddly bits on the object file; it's a straightforward object with really finely detailed textures)

The 3D modeling presents the frame which texture artists use to make their magic.

Truth be told, you can't get model the level of detail necessary to match what can be done with textures, displacement/bump/alphas etc..  At least, not get the detail and be able to render it.  Putting too much fine detail on an object is unnecessary if you can present that detail with a texture map.  What can you map, what do you have to model?  That always seems to be the question.

Quote - I've seen bunches of psd files, for those lucky enough to afford Photoshop (I have Gimp, which limits me, but whaddayawantforfree?...;)

You can import some Photoshop brushes (abr) into Gimp, IIRC.  There are other crossover components as well, I think, somewhere between the programs you mentioned.

Quote - Are you creating the texture files from scratch; are there URLS of 'insanely great' textures out there, or is the secret using lots of different textures on just a few polys?

I'm not a "texture artist" but, what type of textures are you thinking about?  There are all sorts of different types, many of the computer generated using fairly automatic processes.  For instance, pattern-type textures are usually several different types of Photoshop processes and styles finagled together.  There are even "texture generators" out there.  Here's a very cool online one: 

http://www.grsites.com/generate/group/4003/

You can use it to make some seamless, good quality base textures (not, necessarily, things like fabric patterns) and then modify them to suite yourself in your program of choice.  Virtually all common "pattern" textures are going to be computer generated from a base, seamless, texture.  For wacky/wild/non-repetitive textures, a lot are computer generated then modified with different styles.  There are a few other online seamless texture tools out there that could help you as a base for a 2D image map for color textures, bumps, displacements, whatever.

Quote - If there are some good texturing tutorials out there (for detailed texturing), point me that way. If I ever figure out how to make Hexagon not supply me with 'bell shaped blobs', I'll try using that.

I don't use Hex's paint features simply because of some conflicts with my much older vid card & drivers.  I wish I could use it but NOT for creating the texture - I'd want it to paint on ref's for use in planning textures.  IMO, Hex is not designed to do anything more than do an adequate job of creating a base painted on texture map for an object.  I don't know that many models could look decent with only Hex's 3D painting textures.  It's wonderful to have that tool but, not a final solution by any means.

Quote - If there are programs I should look into? (Have Paintshop pro, Gimp, Corel Draw, 'something that starts with an M', and probably many more...;), I'm all ears, as the Ferengi say...;)

I'd start with tutorials for programs you already have.  Focus on creating unique looking seamless textures, brushes or effects, not necessarily anything specific.  Then, work on UVMapping with texture groups specifically in mind.

Quote - Thanks, appreciated already...;)

I won't be of much use, I'm not a very good texture artist.  But, I can recognize them when they happen to float to the top. :)

One thing I think that anyone with a serious interest in textures NEEDS to do is to work with generated materials like those found in Poser's material room.  These save time, effort and, most importantly, memory space.  You can generate a highly detailed, dynamic texture for bits on the byte with materials much more effective than a 2D texture/color map.  Want a highly detailed bump map?  Use materials and a 2D overlay to get what you want.  Want leather that looks like leather?  Use materials.  Want displacement effects so detailed you can render at any resolution and get outstanding closeups?  Use materials.

Materials like those are what enable 3D professionals to make the movies we all go ga-ga over.  For some applications, 2D maps are necessary.  But, if you want true detail, combine the flexibility of 2D maps with the high detail capability and dynamics of computer generated 3D materials.  Take advantage of all tools the renderer affords you.

PS - One thing to keep in mind is the resolution of your map.  If it is meant for high detailed work and you are relying on 2D textures to carry that off, then you HAVE to have a hi-res map.  Working a texture in 500x500 for a model intended to be rendered at 3000x3000 is going to result in a useless blob of goo.  FYI- Hexagon only creates UVMaps at screen resolution.  To get bigger ones that afford you more detail, you have to use another program to resize/recreate that UVMap at a higher resolution.  But, resolution isn't always the key.. a hi-res crappy texture just looks more craptastic at higher resolutions. :)  AND, keep in mind one of the most memory hungry model components there can be is a huge 2D texture map.  Poly's are first, texture maps are next in determining a models memory footprint.  Comp generated materials are very, very lightweight.

I've been gone for awhile, just getting back into the swing of things.

About detailing, Zbrush is my favorite for bump/displacement.
You can find more information here.

Quote - How the @#$% do you get your textures to look so good?...;)  I've been able to UVMap for some time, but the 'density' (level of detail) of textures seems to be (to coin a phrase) all over the map.

I'm not claiming that my textures look so good, but what the heck, I'll have a go anyway.

Maybe we could see some annotated examples of your "all over the map"s to get some idea of the problems you're seeing? In private, if necessary - but you know what they say, many hands make light work. :)

Quote - I've looked at some of the texture packs that have been offered here, and tried some of them, but the thing I'm after is detail (I have a theory that the secret to modeling isn't loads of fiddly bits on the object file; it's a straightforward object with really finely detailed textures)

Erm - not necessarily. An appropriate level of detail is what you want. No point in using a 4096 x 4096 texture on a figure's eyeball, for instance, unless anatomical close-ups are your aim. But yes, if you can achieve your goals with maps applied to a one poly square, go for it. Bear in mind that you may want several maps - texture, bump, displacement, specularity etc.

Quote - I've seen bunches of psd files, for those lucky enough to afford Photoshop (I have Gimp, which limits me, but whaddayawantforfree?...;)

Paint Shop Pro will open PSD files. I use version 7 for just about everything. Never could get the hang of The Gimp, because I never really needed to. Maybe when I switch to Linux. :)

Quote - Are you creating the texture files from scratch; are there URLS of 'insanely great' textures out there, or is the secret using lots of different textures on just a few polys?

Sometimes I draw from scratch, sometimes I photograph or scan my own source material, sometimes I download some insanely great textures (try Mayang for a start, or my links page if you need more). Most often I combine these techniques.

Did you check out good tutorials http://www.good-tutorials.com/ or 3D total  http://www.3dtotal.com/  I don't know if they have anything for Gimp but maybe you could adapt some of the Photoshop ones.
For textures..  cgtextures is also good..   http://www.cgtextures.com/

Textures aren't that hard. I just open the uv template and start painting, It takes a lot of back and forth between Photoshop 7 (in my case) and Poser to get them right sometimes. A lot of the texture actually depends on the uv map more than you think it does. Sometimes the uv's are very stretched and you have to compensate for that on the texture.

Laurie

Hmmm...gad, as for examples of problem textures, one of my holy grails is to make really big models (enormous spaceships or blimps,etc) and as I refer to it 'portholes...dammit...;) Let me chop some of these down to fit...brb

Here's a model blimp.

Kinda Cartoony, but i'm trying to get detail by using portholes to establish a scale to make it look big...;)

Ok, here's a sample of the texture I created...there's one for each section between the frame (I think there's about 8 or 9 all told for the whole megilla). A later version had black borders slightly larger, which gave it some more definition. Now if I only remembered where I saved them...;)

The trick is to get more realistic textures, I suppose. I'd like to get more detail on spaceships (and Little Dragon found a couple of tuts to do so, albeit in Photoshop...;)

So the main thing is having the textures set the scale of the model. I'm sure it can be done, I just suppose that the trick is learning how to texture well. Stuff like Stephan Morrell,  Uzilite, Kozaburo, etc., (well, not to leave anyone out, but I've likely got something from everyone here, so thank you...again...;)

Ya know, I think my real first problem is how to apply textures evenly. I've been working on getting the model here mapped (in Wings, straight on, in Camera mode, which seems to give the finest detail per jpg...;)

I've seen how it's done in UVMapper classic (most of my attempts to use that give me designs that look like a streetmap of Downtown Boston...;), and I've tried to extrapolate that to Corel Draw..

I'll take on some of the tutorials, the sites, etc., and see what I can come up with. I could flood Freestuff with hundreds of models, if I thought they were good enough...muwhahaha...;) ahem...;)

I'll be back...promise...

Quote - Please excuse the crudity of the model - Dr. Emmett Brown...;)

Ok, here's a sample of the texture I created...there's one for each section between the frame (I think there's about 8 or 9 all told for the whole megilla). A later version had black borders slightly larger, which gave it some more definition. Now if I only remembered where I saved them...;)

The trick is to get more realistic textures, I suppose. I'd like to get more detail on spaceships (and Little Dragon found a couple of tuts to do so, albeit in Photoshop...;)

So the main thing is having the textures set the scale of the model. I'm sure it can be done, I just suppose that the trick is learning how to texture well. Stuff like Stephan Morrell,  Uzilite, Kozaburo, etc., (well, not to leave anyone out, but I've likely got something from everyone here, so thank you...again...;)

Ya know, I think my real first problem is how to apply textures evenly. I've been working on getting the model here mapped (in Wings, straight on, in Camera mode, which seems to give the finest detail per jpg...;)

I've seen how it's done in UVMapper classic (most of my attempts to use that give me designs that look like a streetmap of Downtown Boston...;), and I've tried to extrapolate that to Corel Draw..

I'll take on some of the tutorials, the sites, etc., and see what I can come up with. I could flood Freestuff with hundreds of models, if I thought they were good enough...muwhahaha...;) ahem...;)

I'll be back...promise...

Have you tried breaking the item up into more than one UV map? If you have a model that has lots of "parts" and you try and fit them all on one map, then detail is definitely gonna suffer ;o). Sometimes you can't just "squish" all those different parts onto one map...lol. They're all gonna be tiny.

Laurie

This...

Quote - ... Have you tried breaking the item up into more than one UV map? If you have a model that has lots of "parts" and you try and fit them all on one map, then detail is definitely gonna suffer ;o). Sometimes you can't just "squish" all those different parts onto one map...lol. They're all gonna be tiny.  Laurie

is truth.

Optimizing your UVMap is so critical everywhere, most of the time, that people do it on instinct.  But, for rendering stills or light animation work, it's not necessary to rape every bite of space you can and, quality can suffer because of it if you're primarily worried about the 2D texture effects.

SO, UVmap out sections separately where greater detail is needed than a single map, with all its gajillions of zones, can afford.

Pull up a V4 UVMap in UVmapper. What do you see?  Multiple maps, that's what.  Why?  Because, the detail required (in a good 2D texture) for a rendering figure is much greater than that required by a online game and memory space is not usually at a critical premium for simply rendering it.  So, V4 has a bunch of x-thousand by x-thousand maps covering her torso, face, legs&arms, etc. which give very good results.  If she was in a game, she'd have one UVMap with everything crammed on it as low as resolution as possible yet still giving decent results.  Not easy to do... there are specialized programs and plugins out there costing big bucks that automagically try to optimize UVMap efficiency.

If you're using that airship (nice, btw) for high detail rendering, try to use comp generated materials for the skin.  That probably requires less exactness of placement than anything and would be easily done.  You can also augment it with a high-res bump map if necessary or just use one with materials generated by the comp.  (Poser's weave node or tile node comes to mind for a good, comp generated bump that takes up very little space.)

But, whenever you need more detail for a 2D texture, always provide room for it on the map, even if you have to make a separate one. Which is no big deal and very easy to do if you need help there.  The computer doesn't care about what a 2D UVMap looks like to us with stacks of UV'd faces all on top of each other.  It doesn't read it in the same way as we see it on the screen.  So, when you open up a high detail object and see stacks and stacks of mapped surfaces/shading domains lying all on top of each other, it may look like garbage but, the computer loves it just the same as one "optimized" UVmap.  It's just a tad bit more memory hungry because of the increased resolution of the maps.

Attached Link: http://www.morphography.uk.vu/uvmapping.html

If I read Pakled's reply correctly - which is not a given, by any means - that is what he's doing anyway. The problem is to get the parts mapped consistently so that you don't have sudden changes in scale between maps.

I'm not sure what the definitive answer is to that, but here's a couple of random thoughts.

If you're making something with a lot of repeated segments, make one, UV map it, and only then replicate the mapped segment. Then your maps are guaranteed to match for scale. You'll have to change the material zones on each part if you want to be able to apply different maps to each segment, though - and your modeller must preserve the mapping, assuming you map in an external application and import back. Most do, I believe.

For more complex things, I might be tempted to try Roadkill. It should be good for inorganic shapes if used in its LSCM mode. You would get an all-in-one map, but you could then go to UVMapper and expand each piece. As long as you use a fixed scale factor, and not the maximise function, your scale will be preserved. My RoadKill / UVMapper tutorial is oriented towards clothing, but it may be useful nonetheless. [Linky above]

I've found that doing cylindrical/spherical objects requires multiple maps; once you're 'off' by a few degrees, things start stretching; which doesn't show up as much with 'monochromatic' textures, but seems to really get 'ugly' with anything having a pattern...

I probably should look up the old Wings 'toxic waste barrell' tut and see if I can use that. I'm about 70% so far on the mapping part of UVMapping; it's just that the sources of the textures just look...amateurish...;)

So what happens for some of you is that you cut the UVMap out as a layer (still have to figure that out in Gimp...there's a tut somewhere...;) and then put the texture layer over that, and it all comes out ok. AT least that's what some of the tutorials say. But that's a matter for the UVMapping forum.

That, and figuring out how to get sharp edges on models in Poser, once figured out, I can deluge the world...;)

Maybe there's a UVMapping tut on how to get quality issues somewhere?

Thanks for all the help so far folks

I'll have to see if I have Roadkill; I know I have UVMapper. Thanks for the tuts.

Quote - Actually...I have...boy have I...;) Here's a partial listing of UVs...textures are below that, and off the screen. (Note - I cheat like a bandit; UVMap one 'addon' bit (like towers, etc), then duplicate it several times)

I've found that doing cylindrical/spherical objects requires multiple maps; once you're 'off' by a few degrees, things start stretching; which doesn't show up as much with 'monochromatic' textures, but seems to really get 'ugly' with anything having a pattern...

I probably should look up the old Wings 'toxic waste barrell' tut and see if I can use that. I'm about 70% so far on the mapping part of UVMapping; it's just that the sources of the textures just look...amateurish...;)

So what happens for some of you is that you cut the UVMap out as a layer (still have to figure that out in Gimp...there's a tut somewhere...;) and then put the texture layer over that, and it all comes out ok. AT least that's what some of the tutorials say. But that's a matter for the UVMapping forum.

That, and figuring out how to get sharp edges on models in Poser, once figured out, I can deluge the world...;)

Maybe there's a UVMapping tut on how to get quality issues somewhere?

Thanks for all the help so far folks

I'll have to see if I have Roadkill; I know I have UVMapper. Thanks for the tuts.

Try halving the cylindrical part and then cylindrically map each half. It may cause less stretching than trying to cylindrically map the entire hull. Of course you'll have seams you'll need to line up, but that's the nature of the beast ;o). Typically, there are always spots on a uv map that stretch more than others and you have to compensate when you're doing the texture.

Laurie

Wings has a stretch optimizer but I don't know how good it works.  I only just started learning to do the mapping in Wings. Much easier then I thought & I really think the textures are sharper then they were using uvmapper or maybe it's just my imagination.