Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?



  • @manfrommars Thanks! Looks promising for sure.



  • @fverbaas said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    I have never understood why the retopologizing needs to change the uv's. In the end it is just a matter of tiling the same islands with different tiles. Seems like a flaw in the process.

    The UV map is based on the vertices in the mesh, specifically the regions covered by the faces made up of those vertices. Change those vertices by adding/removing them, changing their order, and you can break the UV, since it doesn't know what it's doing anymore...

    ie: The UV map "is" the mesh, just in a 2d form so 2d textures/procedures can be easily applied to it.



  • @morkonan
    Sure when re-topolgizing you change the tesselation in both 3d representation and in 2d.
    There is no reason why the location and shape of the edges of the islands in the 2d representation should change, however, so why textures would no longer fit. Of course when the tesselation is very coarse the difference in polygon representation of the edges can become an issue.



  • @fverbaas said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    @morkonan
    Sure when re-topolgizing you change the tesselation in both 3d representation and in 2d.
    There is no reason why the location and shape of the edges of the islands in the 2d representation should change, however, so why textures would no longer fit. Of course when the tesselation is very coarse the difference in polygon representation of the edges can become an issue.

    I have to admit, I don't really understand this. That's likely because it's more focused on a MD point of view and I have no familiarity with it.

    A UV map is basically an object's geometry with one axis removed.

    The only concept of "areas" or "size" or anything relative to how much landscape a face or set of faces occupies is defined, first, by the "projection" method used in creating the "UV Map." Once that is done, then, typically, as far as the UV map information is concerned, that's "it" - There is no more 3d reference point, no more "this is really bigger than that" from any particular point of 3D view, etc... It has now, unless edited, written a set of reference points in 2D that describes how that particular set of points will "look" in 2D so that a 2D texture can be applied correctly.

    There are no other "shapes" and the only way it can recognize anything as a "shape", loosely defined, is if there are material zones or groups. And, even then, those are only ever collections of geometry that are associated as belonging together in some way. They don't even have to be contiguous/connected to each other. Every vertice in the object is now associated with a 2d coordinate system so that 2D images can be used. And, it's all "relative." Remove a vertice and some references become nonsensical. Remove too many and the map is truly destroyed. (Some automated operations can get past this problem.)

    I suppose it's possible to force some sort of map-like information to stay constant. That's what projections/world-space/UVW?/etc stuff does, regardless of any "UV" information. But, then that wouldn't be a classically defined UV map application/section of an object file.

    There are plenty of 3D pros here that may know differently. :) So, I'd be interested to here about specifics when it comes down to UV maps and doing interesting things with them, like preserving some sort of 2D "area map" that can somehow be re-used for objects with differing geometry.

    That would make texturing an object or multiple objects so very much easier... :) (One map to rule them all, one map to find them, one map to bring them all and with my crappy textures, bind them... :) )



  • @morkonan I think I get it a bit. It's like cutting a chocolate cake. You can cut the cake any way you want. The individual slices may differ, but the over all shape of the cake remains the same.



  • @eclark1849 said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    @morkonan I think I get it a bit. It's like cutting a chocolate cake. You can cut the cake any way you want. The individual slices may differ, but the over all shape of the cake remains the same.

    Or, if you have seen some of my worst UV mapping sessions, the nice chocolate cake has been run over by a truck. It's still a "chocolate cake" and is probably quite tasty. But, from a distance, it looks suspiciously like something you get after you eat something, not actually something that is supposed to be eaten... :)



  • @morkonan

    Consider back when Genesis 1 first came out, and the figure was androgynous. They're both human, right? Yeah. And you can make clothing work on both male and female figures, right?

    Well, yes and no. Didn't quite work out as well as planned. Due to the obvious differences in male and female chest shapes, the UVs for the androgynous figure didn't work so well on female characters. Want a polka dotted blouse in the Genesis female? Well, unless you had texturing software that did projection painting it was next to impossible. If you flood filled your blouse with a 2D texture in Photoshop, you would have huge stretched out polka dots on the chest which didn't look all that great.

    So there isn't always a "one map to rule them all" situation that works. Especially when you start changing the body shapes of the figures.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    The curse of Poser figures is that they are expected to be all things to all users. This inevitably results in compromises. In other areas of 3D - VFX or realtime - optimisation is the key ;)



  • @Deecey said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    Well, yes and no. Didn't quite work out as well as planned. Due to the obvious differences in male and female chest shapes, the UVs for the androgynous figure didn't work so well on female characters. Want a polka dotted blouse in the Genesis female? Well, unless you had texturing software that did projection painting it was next to impossible. If you flood filled your blouse with a 2D texture in Photoshop, you would have huge stretched out polka dots on the chest which didn't look all that great.

    Actually, those are relatively easily fixed problems. Though, the utility of having the same mapping for both human figures, for instance, would be lost and you would have to have two separate base objects or a file type that would project whatever valid, even if different, UV map you wanted.

    One could, if one wished, use a character file type that contained its own UV mapping information. (Coordinate system for texture application) independent of reading any such information in the base object file, itself. Some texture-stretching would occur, by necessity, but you could, as long as the base objects were just different morphs of the same geometry, freely use whatever mapping you wanted at the click of a button.

    IIRC, CR2s contain material coordinate information in them, do they not? Same basic thing, just incorporating something that forces UV maps.

    So there isn't always a "one map to rule them all" situation that works. Especially when you start changing the body shapes of the figures.

    2D texture stretching and object referenced projections are true issues. But, outside of that, you can project whatever you want onto a 3D object in a 2D representation with zero stretching problems. Of course, that's an entirely different mapping method and isn't suitable for detailed textures on realistic 3D objects.

    ie: "Southpark's" use of cardboard patterns. They don't warp to fit the "shape", they're "flat." No problem, no stretching, but completely unrealistic for complex textures that are supposed to look realistic in a "2D" render as being part of a "3D" object. A Southpark character's checkered shirt is still a checkered shirt, just not one that could exist in a 3D world. :)



  • @morkonan
    If you have the chocolate cake run over by a truck, you change the 3d shape. Re-topologizing aims to keep the 3d shape unchanged.