[Bf-committers] Re: [Bf-blender-cvs] CVS commit: blender/source/blender/include butspace.h blender/source/blender/python BPY_menus.c BPY_menus.h blender/source/blender/src editface.c headerbuttons.c blender/release/scripts uv_archimap.py uv_from_adjacent.py

[Matt Ebb]

On 14/12/2006, at 12:50 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> I changed this because a blender user (using a CVS build)

It's not just CVS, it was Unwrap in the 2.42 release too.

> emailed me asking where "LSCM" mapping was, existing tutorials etc  
> refernce "LSCM"
> This seemed a good compromise.

Existing tutorials reference a lot of out-of-date things (i.e.  
subsurf) :) But it was also changed for a pretty good reason.  
Personally I think it if was just simply called 'Unwrap' to start  
with, this wouldn't be a problem now anyway.

The other advantage of something simple and descriptive like 'Unwrap'  
is that it doesn't need to be changed each time there is an upgrade  
in the unwrapper technology. If a new method is added, as happened  
before, users can just keep on happily using 'Unwrap' and enjoying  
the results, since the newer option would be default in the engine  
choice menu.

It's also much nicer that way also since it avoids extra complexity  
and choices that a user would be forced to make from the outset, but  
most users aren't informed enough to make that decision anyway, it'd  
just be guesswork. I don't know how either LSCM or angle based works  
- if I was forced to choose between the two of them every time, I'd  
just choose angle based every time anyway since its newer and  
supposedly better (hence why it's now default). Though people not  
experienced in this probably wouldn't know what to choose, and would  
either a) keep on using the inferior LSCM since it's mentioned in out- 
of-date tutorials, or b) just make a random guess between the two of  
them. Not only is this putting more work on to users to make these  
decisions when the software can do a better job, but it also could  
mean that users get inferior results.

The way it works currently is great since you generally get a good  
result first time without having to think If you really want to tweak  
it and use a different engine, the option is there, but going into  
that sort of detail is voluntary, not forced!

> Since its angle based now whats should it be called - should we  
> just have 2 unwrap items in the menu?

That's probably not good since the uwrapper 'engine' choice also  
determines what happens when you recalculate the unwrap in the UV  
editor either by the hotkey/menu, but also when you're using live  
unwrap. It would be rather confusing if a user chose (for example)  
LSCM in the 3D View menu, but then when he went to use live unwrap,  
the layout suddenly jumped into a new shape (because of the different  
engine being used for that).

cheers,


Matt