Wishlist. It would be nice .... Lista dei desideri. Sarebbe bello che....

m_m_italy

Patience55 said:

Roygee said:

Could you put the .hxn file up somewhere like 4shared and PM me the link. I'd like to take a closer look - something not right there :)

Cheers and a merry Christmas to you and everyone else :)

I'll put it on the list lol ... ty.

Happy New Year too!

Thank you.....in anticipo

patience55

Roygee said:

Could you put the .hxn file up somewhere like 4shared and PM me the link. I'd like to take a closer look - something not right there :)

Cheers and a merry Christmas to you and everyone else :)

PM sent ;-)

Roygee

Hi Patience:)

Thank you - interesting exercise.

Firstly, the model is really tiny and the mesh very dense for such a small size - this had an effect on the painting. Secondly, the way the UV's were mapped and laid out disproportionately also had an adverse effect.

The first pic below shows the original, with a checkerboard texture - compare that to the second, where I have re-mapped it to be proportional. Hint - always do a checkerboard texture check. What you are looking for is evenly spaced, uniform checkers.

EDIT : The first two pics came in the wrong order)

The third pic shows the re-mapped object painted at a low resolution(128 X 128) and various settings for the brush. A total mess!

The next shows the same object painted with high resolution (4096 X 4096) - huge improvement, but still some almost imperceptible bleeding along some edges.

The last is the same object mapped in UU3D, which gives exact proportional unwrapping and layout - took but a few seconds to do. That is painted with a medium resolution (1024 X 1024) - absolutely perfect, no streaking or bleeding at all.

So, it all comes down to good UV mapping, with the resolution and brush settings - especially fall-off, playing a lesser, but important part. Just as it would in a 2D paint application.

I always advocate getting a dedicated UV mapper - they just give so many more options than built-in mappers and save hugely on time.

patience55

Roygee said:

Hi Patience:)

Thank you - interesting exercise.

Firstly, the model is really tiny and the mesh very dense for such a small size - this had an effect on the painting. Secondly, the way the UV's were mapped and laid out disproportionately also had an adverse effect.

The first pic below shows the original, with a checkerboard texture - compare that to the second, where I have re-mapped it to be proportional. Hint - always do a checkerboard texture check. What you are looking for is evenly spaced, uniform checkers.

EDIT : The first two pics came in the wrong order)

The third pic shows the re-mapped object painted at a low resolution(128 X 128) and various settings for the brush. A total mess!

The next shows the same object painted with high resolution (4096 X 4096) - huge improvement, but still some almost imperceptible bleeding along some edges.

The last is the same object mapped in UU3D, which gives exact proportional unwrapping and layout - took but a few seconds to do. That is painted with a medium resolution (1024 X 1024) - absolutely perfect, no streaking or bleeding at all.

So, it all comes down to good UV mapping, with the resolution and brush settings - especially fall-off, playing a lesser, but important part. Just as it would in a 2D paint application.

I always advocate getting a dedicated UV mapper - they just give so many more options than built-in mappers and save hugely on time.

So the solution in Hexagon is to use more paper? 4096 X 4096

The uvmap was the way it was because nobody is going to see the back, and I wanted the front to have as much paper allotted to it as possible. I am aware of the checkerT test, but figured bleeding was bleeding.

Thanks for looking at the file. I'll try more paper ;-)

Roygee

So the solution in Hexagon is to use more paper? 4096 X 4096

The uvmap was the way it was because nobody is going to see the back, and I wanted the front to have as much paper allotted to it as possible. I am aware of the checkerT test, but figured bleeding was bleeding.

Thanks for looking at the file. I’ll try more paper wink

Well, no, not really :)

The solution starts with a good UV map. I didn't know what you were using it for - if only the front is going to be seen, what you could do is to detach the front from the rest and map that separately - that way you could give it the full grid and mapping it would be a lot simpler. Don't even need to map the rest - just give it a colour.

EDIT: Another, more elegant solution, is to keep it as one piece, give the front a shading domain, move the UV islands for everything but the front off the UV grid, expand the front UV island to fill the grid and give the rest a simple colour.

patience55

Roygee said:

So the solution in Hexagon is to use more paper? 4096 X 4096

The uvmap was the way it was because nobody is going to see the back, and I wanted the front to have as much paper allotted to it as possible. I am aware of the checkerT test, but figured bleeding was bleeding.

Thanks for looking at the file. I’ll try more paper wink

Well, no, not really :)

The solution starts with a good UV map. I didn't know what you were using it for - if only the front is going to be seen, what you could do is to detach the front from the rest and map that separately - that way you could give it the full grid and mapping it would be a lot simpler. Don't even need to map the rest - just give it a colour.

EDIT: Another, more elegant solution, is to keep it as one piece, give the front a shading domain, move the UV islands for everything but the front off the UV grid, expand the front UV island to fill the grid and give the rest a simple colour.

The solution starts with ... hmm ... well Hexagon made the uvmap. If it's not good, no point to further discuss uvmapping in Hexagon I guess. The maps themselves work fine with images applied in D/S, it's the painting in Hexagon that some of us have issues with.

Putting the one shading domain on all the paper, yes that might help solve problem for one item ... but not for the next lol ...

ty

Off to play with 3D Coat for awhile.

patience55

Okay ... bigger piece of paper helps a lot.

Uvmap is fine [actually I used another model just made in Hexagon]. A cylinder thing which required no unfolding etc.

The BIG help is to adjust the "cutoff" ... if one puts that down to zero, one is painting one face normal at a time lol ...

Another discovery, at least in W7, "thou shalt not have the saving folder on the desktop" ... at least, not if one hopes to save the textures created while painting. Hexagon claims to have made and saved them, the .mtl file says where ... the folder and contents simply do not exist. But if one puts the folder in the Documents, [and possibly a shortcut to the Desktop], then goes through the same saving actions ... then the new texture file is actually saved in the same folder as the .hxn file.
W7 is a tad quirky about the Desktop.

Roygee

Strange - just tested and the .png does save to the desktop. I'm also on W7. Granted, Studio doesn't find the texture, but it is notorious for not reading .mtl files :)

patience55

Roygee said:

Strange - just tested and the .png does save to the desktop. I'm also on W7. Granted, Studio doesn't find the texture, but it is notorious for not reading .mtl files :)

To be more precise, I'm using W7Pro in case the Pro part makes a difference? I have noticed with Hexagon on this system that it has some issues when it comes to saving textures, even just references to checker Ts and/or colours ... and this painting, yikes but it causes so many "Hexagon has encountered an error" crashes that it's not funny. One of these days think I may have to reinstall it ...

While the hxn file was on the desktop, Hexagon didn't create the folder and files ... even an all out search didn't locate it. Even checked hidden folders. Refreshed everything several times, no help. Funny though, when the hxn was in Documents, Hexagon didn't put the texture into a folder, just loose beside the .hxn file. It finds it then too. btw - any issues with Hexagon do not necessarily repeat consistently. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don't. And when absolutely everything should be working just fine, it won't. Hexie loves to be creative lol ...

Roygee

The Pro may make a difference - I'm on Home Premium. Where do you have Hex located? I have seen a recommendation to run it directly from the C:/ drive instead of the default C:/Program Folders(X86) - I've done both, with no noticeable difference.

If you are doing one, maybe try the other:)

Maybe also try running it in XP compatability mode?

BTW, Hex has never made a folder for the texture file for me - always puts the .mtl and .png in the same folder as the .hxn file. Studio doesn't read it at all and Carrara asks me to locate it "Impossible to find" and it's right there next to it!

patience55

Yes I'm one who normally recommends installing it on the C drive and not in the program folders ... but last time I was doing major installations, I seemed to have missed following my own advice lol ... and this is why I'm thinking some problems might not happen if I reinstall it. 2 betas before this one were working fine, then one of the 'fixes' borked on my system and I never did figure out why or what to do about it ... no where near as stable as the ancient edition however that one doesn't bridge to D/S4.x so ....

Guess I'd better download a fresh installer and see what happens.

patience55

Okay :-)

1. Hexagon was installed where it should be, NOT in the main program folders BUT
2. The OS didn't know that because when I went to uninstall it, it couldn't find it, etc. SO
3. I just ran the fresh installer and NOW it saves the painted page to the desktop folder too :-) :-)

So hopefully this new year will be off to a good start with a fresh install of Hexagon.

n.b. the serial key in my account is awol BUT it must still be logged in the computer somewhere because it did not ask for one.

Roygee

There you go :) Here's hoping that is the end of your strange Hex shenanigans!

You have made Hex LAA?

m_m_italy

You could kindly speak more slowly?
Potreste gentilmente parlare un po' più lentamente?
Vous pourriez vouloir parler un peu plus lentement?
Grazie
:cheese:
:blank:
:-)

patience55

m_m_italy said:

You could kindly speak more slowly?
Potreste gentilmente parlare un po' più lentamente?
Vous pourriez vouloir parler un peu plus lentement?
Grazie
:cheese:
:blank:
:-)

Okay ... um, for "where to install" Hexagon, I have attached a picture.
One can name their own special folder anything they want to.

patience55

And yes I use one of the 2 available choices for increasing memory usage in Hexagon.

For LAA, 'Large Address Aware':

IF the computer is 64 bit AND there is more than 3GiB of RAM, then LAA can be downloaded here:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/large-address-aware.112556/

Scroll down to the place as shown in the image ....

And the other images show installation information. One is NOT "installing" LAA, it is a utility.

patience55

Roygee said:

There you go :) Here's hoping that is the end of your strange Hex shenanigans!

You have made Hex LAA?

ROTFLMHO ... or however it goes ... surely you jest lol ... we found NEW ONE!!!

When using the fast add a new line all around tessellation button, it sometimes unwelds. Same as before. So I check using the 'close holes' button and normally one must abort and then close holes manually. But today I tried the close holes button, select that fancy A and it appeared to work. That is until I tried to get another 3D program to import it. Crashed 3D Coat everytime. Remade the .obj file NOT using the "close hole" button options, and it loaded fine. Made a little table ;-) In the 3D Coat crash report ... there were a lot of references to files which it could not find which had nothing to do with the table so ? what Hexagon was writing that 3D Coat was reading. Deleting the .mtl file did not help so had to be something in the .obj file. Since the only variable was the use of the close holes button, I figure it had to be that, that caused a problem.