|
Post by simmerish20 on Nov 21, 2020 14:46:09 GMT -5
If you're transfering 1024x1024 UVs over to a 1024x2048 or 2048x4096 map (or any other size or shape), you've probably found out they stretch a bit and seem tiny. That's very easy to fix - you just scale them on the axis you need them to be smaller or larger. In Blender, you can hold in CTRL to scale them in increments of 1/10, and you can also scale on one axis at a time (x/y). UVs are scaleable up/down/sideways, along with smaller or bigger, and you won't lose anything in the process. Textures, not so much. I tend to extract the original UV and the UV of the map I want to place it on, combine them in Photoshop, and then use the combined picture as a guide for how to scale/move the UVs I want to edit. Works like a charm. (I often work with 4t2 comversions, which has this issue - textures from TS4 often leaves a lot of empty space unless they're remapped).
---
Bigger UVs compared to smaller UVs (if you compare on the same size texture map) always give better quality. It's also why HQ compared to lowQ tends to look better. However - if you can get better quality textures (larger UVs and good quality textures), with smaller texture maps, that's usually better than using larger texture maps.
|
|
|
Post by theterrorfox on Nov 21, 2020 16:02:16 GMT -5
If you're transfering 1024x1024 UVs over to a 1024x2048 or 2048x4096 map (or any other size or shape), you've probably found out they stretch a bit and seem tiny. That's very easy to fix - you just scale them on the axis you need them to be smaller or larger. In Blender, you can hold in CTRL to scale them in increments of 1/10, and you can also scale on one axis at a time (x/y). UVs are scaleable up/down/sideways, along with smaller or bigger, and you won't lose anything in the process. Textures, not so much. I tend to extract the original UV and the UV of the map I want to place it on, combine them in Photoshop, and then use the combined picture as a guide for how to scale/move the UVs I want to edit. Works like a charm. (I often work with 4t2 comversions, which has this issue - textures from TS4 often leaves a lot of empty space unless they're remapped).
---
Bigger UVs compared to smaller UVs (if you compare on the same size texture map) always give better quality. It's also why HQ compared to lowQ tends to look better. However - if you can get better quality textures (larger UVs and good quality textures), with smaller texture maps, that's usually better than using larger texture maps.
Uh...Okey?
|
|
|
Post by theterrorfox on Nov 23, 2020 8:41:08 GMT -5
Yes,thats it the texture,but I mean,when I resize the texture in photoshop,I have to make the UV smaller No you don't. The UV map linked to your mesh tells the texture where to be applied. It doesn't have to be the same resolution as the texture. Can you give us the package? So...Do you know how I can fix that?
|
|
|
Post by simmerish20 on Nov 23, 2020 16:20:06 GMT -5
Scale up the UVs to the same size you want the texture to be (in your case 1024x1024 I'm guessing?)
UVs are scaleable.
|
|
|
Post by theterrorfox on Nov 24, 2020 14:52:50 GMT -5
I dont understand,if I need to scale the uv I need to upscale the texture
|
|
|
Post by simmerish20 on Nov 24, 2020 15:48:54 GMT -5
Had a proper look at the textures and files, so let's recap - you've resized the 2048x2048 texture into an approximate 900x900 square down in a corner of a 2048x4096 map?
This means you've made the original texture much smaller - this could explain some of the pixellation since every time you make something smaller you do run the risk of causing pixellation.
I don't know if there are any better ways to do it, although you could try to use 1024x1024 instead, if the mapping allows for it. The area around the chest/back is potentially a bit smaller than that particular corner.
|
|
|
Post by theterrorfox on Nov 25, 2020 2:16:36 GMT -5
I am cutting the texture in smaller pieces to try if this works
|
|