[Bf-committers] Idea for textureing method.

Ton Roosendaal ton at blender.org
Thu Jan 6 13:06:12 CET 2005


One thing to look at is using the "Tex Mesh" feature. Blender then uses  
as "Orco" texture coordinates the vertex locations of another Mesh. You  
can just duplicate the tree and move the branches in a way that gives  
pleasant XYZ textures.

I also don't really understand how procedurals go wrong in a direction,  
most procudurals work very well in 3D. (Unless with directional  
procedurals like 'wood' or 'marble', but for good looking wood you can  
use other textures much better).

The distance-weighted method with empties could be a useful experiment,  
but I don't know if that's really satisfying and giving pleasant quick  
control over textures. We might then better check on using the  
weight-painting method or vertexgrouping we have now?

But probably the "Tex Mesh" feature would work best for your project.


On 5 Jan, 2005, at 15:19, Robert Wenzlaff wrote:

> I sat down the other night to make a tree (I know, "....only God...").
> I made a very convincing bark texture from the procedurals.  I should  
> say, it
> was very convincing on the trunk.  Where the branches went horizontal,  
> it of
> course looked wrong.
> Well this is typically where you would UV map.  But a tree with many  
> branches
> all at differing heights doesn't unwrap well.  (I'm working on a  
> character
> who is a squirel.  I'm going to need lots of trees.)   And it seems to  
> be a
> lot of work for something as simple as "if the branch is horizontal
> (smoothly) sway the texture space coords to horizontal".
> If it were a simple shape, like a bent tube, I'd use a lattice  
> derform.  But
> thrying to lattice deform a cylinder into a tree would be a nightmare.
> So I began thinking of ways to fill the gap between straight space XYZ  
> texture
> and full UV mapping.
> If we currently want an arbitrary mapping we insert an empty and use OB
> mapping.  What if the OB field were allowed to be a list of empties,  
> or a
> special object type, and the resulting texture space was a distance  
> weighted
> average of the empties' spaces?   You could set up a texture field  
> where the
> XYZ mapped texture flowed following the empties.  Just as a vertex is
> effected by all the bones (in it's group), but the closest ones  
> dominate.
> If we don't want to clutter the texture screens with weighting and  
> grouping
> controls, then a texture field could be a separate object type. (Think
> texture armatures).
> It might also be a useful starting point for UV mapping.  You could  
> "rough in"
> a texture with a field, then Bake it to a UV map.  You could even make  
> a
> special pattern that could hint at how you want the mesh unwrapped.
> My tree would simply have a few empties that followed the paths of the
> branches.  I could make twisting bark textures by rotating  the empties
> around the Z.
> Thoughts?  Am I missing something?  I just had a thought that I could  
> start
> with a hi-res lattice, deform it into a rough tree shape, and use that  
> in the
> OB field of the texture (but not make it a deform parent).   A little
> trickier to edit than a field of empties, but it might serve the same
> purpose.  I'll test after I get back from work.
> --  
> ******************************************************
> Why can't life be as easy as second-order homogeneous
>  differential equations with constant coefficients?
> ******************************************************
> Robert Wenzlaff        rwenzlaff at soylent-green.con
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at projects.blender.org
> http://projects.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton at blender.org  

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list