Author Topic: Why this map gives such different results?  (Read 6754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline solodesign

Why this map gives such different results?
« on: July 11, 2011, 09:04:59 am »
I started a discussion about net material and the way of achieving materials with defined seethrough areas.
This can be achieved using maps with alpha channel, but I found some issues in applying those maps.
Please, refer to this post to see what' s wrong:
http://keyshot.com/forum/index.php?topic=1833.msg7940#msg7940

Thank you,

Marco

Offline solodesign

Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2011, 02:36:37 am »
OK, here I am again.
Lately I couldn' t achieve to make any net/mesh material work, so I followed the Tvanryn tutorial in this topic:
http://keyshot.com/forum/index.php?topic=1349.msg4751#msg4751
to make a PNG file with transparent background.
As you will see in the image attached, I tryed to apply the same map as we did in the beginning of Net material (http://keyshot.com/forum/index.php?topic=1833.0) and as a label (the result is in the background).
The map I used is in the zip file.
Basically looks like it works both ways, but I can' t understand why it gives me that mapping error in the foreground.

Does anybody know what is it due to?
Is there a way to manage that so to have a homogeneous mapping as if I load it as a label?

Marco
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 02:41:23 am by solodesign »

guest84672

  • Guest
Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2011, 06:14:06 am »
I think your problem is related to the UV maps that come with the model itself. And since you are using the a material that is based on the General Material, you can't change the mapping type. This will be addressed in version 3 when we get rid of the General Material.

Is there a way to remap textures in your modeling software?

Offline solodesign

Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2011, 08:56:04 am »
Hi, Thomas, thank you for your answer.
My modeler is Autodesk Inventor.
I usually export in step format and use it for Keyshot import.
I never checked if is there any way to change UV maps, so I can' t tell you if there' s a similar option or not.

Marco

guest84672

  • Guest
Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2011, 12:18:28 pm »
First off, why don't you import the native file format from Inventor?

Can you share an example?

Offline solodesign

Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2011, 07:26:48 am »
First releases didn' t allow to do that.
Anyway I found it was better exporting this way from Inventor because certain geometries were imported in KeyShot with errors such as missing or extra parts.
Overmore, there is an higher percentage of stuck import process selecting Inventor native file format.
And it gives same mapping error.
I also checked in export options but didn' t find anything relating to mapping.

The question is:
Why, if I use it as a label it works and if I use it as a map does not work?
Can' t we make it work the same way?
Labeling options are far skinnier than mapping ones, so there' s lesser probability to achieve same results.
I would like to give the same transparency I get with labeling but with smaller holes, like I have with mapping.
And the PNG file is always the same.

Which example do you need?
A 3D file of the model?

Marco

guest84672

  • Guest
Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2011, 07:42:59 am »
I explained the difference above. The general material doesn't allow any remapping, but is currently the only material that supports opacity or transparency maps. We will change that for KeyShot 3.

I would like to get the actual native inventor file, if possible.

Offline solodesign

Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2011, 08:46:35 am »
Here you can find the model.

I read that, but you will agree with me if I say customers can' t be obliged to buy a new version of the software anytime there' s a rendering problem to solve.
I know Keyshot is a commercial software and it can survive only by continuing selling like all other commercial softwares, but I' m still a customer and I still care about not wasting money.
There surely is some development issue I don' t know but, I mean, trasparency mapping is not something new in renderings (3D Studio has got it since centuries without need of alpha channel saved with image), I would expect someone already took care of it.
Do you think I ask too much?

Marco
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 01:42:37 am by solodesign »

Offline solodesign

Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2011, 07:17:31 am »
Looks like you weren' t able to find a solution, either.
I will have to find another fast rendering software.

Marco

Offline JeffM

Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2011, 12:37:13 pm »
As Thomas mentioned, we'll have opacity mapping on the regular material types in KeyShot 3.

For now, if you can't get the mapping tuned in the modeling software to work with the general material, you can use a label to create a mesh with transparent holes that can be mapped with the box, planar, spherical, and other mapping types.

I put the circular mesh texture on as a label on an emissive material type set to white with 1.0 intensity. Disabled "visible to eye" on the emissive, and enabled the "repeat" option on the label. Then mapped the label with the "box" type.

Take a look at the package file.




Offline solodesign

Re: Why this map gives such different results?
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2011, 01:24:36 am »
Thank you JeffM.
I know using the map as a repeated label works: in the rendering I posted there were both options (label/map) and I said that.
I wanted to know which was the issue why from same file I have different results, because labeling gives me less options than mapping and, I think, mapping should be the right way to do things, not labeling.
I also think there' s a need of some kind of explanation on the concepts that make this software work, because using an emissive material to do this is not the first thing anyone cloud try.

Marco

Offline gypephyhoks

Why this map gives such different results
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2011, 10:34:10 am »
hi all

im new.

im trying to do a process map for an accounting accrual process.

im not sure how to break it down.

basically a request for an accrual is made to the accountant, he/she then enters the data into the system.

this seems too simple though.

essentially there are errors from the transposition errors such as amount, description, code centre, date, tax code etc when journaled.

how granuale do you need to go to make a meaningful process map? 
is it to a level where either step could go wrong?

confused...