Home Technical Talk

Do we really need to be Uv mapping in 2015?

1
art73
polycounter lvl 5
Offline / Send Message
art73 polycounter lvl 5
I`ve been thinking today whilst spending 2 hours uv`ing an fairly simple organic object in Maya, why do we still need to be doing this. I`ve been uv`ing for some 20+ years in games and i`m getting to the point where it feels like i`ll be doing it for another 20 years and I may just become a truck driver instead to save the grief.

I know its efficient to do so for games but surely someone clever can create some kind of PTEX mapping for game engines. Imagine how much time it would save us artists.

Thoughts?

Replies

  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox veteran polycounter
    2 hours unwrapping a simple object? Maybe your workflow is flawed? What did you spend all the time on? Mapping or puzzling? How do you map your stuff? How do you puzzle? Is iPackThat an option?
  • art73
    Offline / Send Message
    art73 polycounter lvl 5
    I take it back, what looked like a fairly simple object proved to be complicated.
  • Maxilator
    Offline / Send Message
    Maxilator polycounter lvl 8
    I think voxel engines will handle that to some extent in the not so far future, though non-static meshes are still a problem.
  • art73
    Offline / Send Message
    art73 polycounter lvl 5
    Neox wrote: »
    2 hours unwrapping a simple object? Maybe your workflow is flawed? What did you spend all the time on? Mapping or puzzling? How do you map your stuff? How do you puzzle? Is iPackThat an option?

    I`ll check out iPackThat thanks.
    It was a series of meshes I was mapping, spheres and cages that were boolean and to be mapped with a mesh texture. So it had to be clean looking and all the texture join up correctly. It was one of those jobs that you think will take 15 minutes and then by the time you get it into the engine without any errors (uv/lightmaps) ie unreal its 2 hours later.

    Imagine if you could just model and then just texture in 3d and your good to go. And lets face it nobody wants to UV, everyone wants to model and texture.
  • Tobbo
    Offline / Send Message
    Tobbo polycounter lvl 11
    Have you tried headus UV Layout yet?
  • Snefer
    Offline / Send Message
    Snefer polycounter lvl 16
    I dont know, making UVs is a very very small time of the production of an asset for me. Dont get everyones issues with it :P
  • beefaroni
    Offline / Send Message
    beefaroni sublime tool
    Between 3d-coat and iPackThat UVs aren't really a concern anymore. There may be one or two shells that I have to manually fix but otherwise it's a super quick process.
  • Ged
    Offline / Send Message
    Ged interpolator
    beefaroni wrote: »
    Between 3d-coat and iPackThat UVs aren't really a concern anymore. There may be one or two shells that I have to manually fix but otherwise it's a super quick process.

    what do you like about using 3d coat? I have it but never used it for uvs. I find uvs a minor inconvenience not a big problem.
  • skankerzero
    I enjoy uvmapping.

    UVLayout, iPackThat and 3DCoat

    If you're still unwrapping in Maya, then that's your problem.
  • beefaroni
    Offline / Send Message
    beefaroni sublime tool
    Ged wrote: »
    what do you like about using 3d coat? I have it but never used it for uvs. I find uvs a minor inconvenience not a big problem.

    It's just easy to quickly and interactively cut UV seams (especially for hard surface).

    I can do seams by hard edges (let's say 60 degrees), put a few more cuts in, click unwrap, check if there are any problems. That right there is like maybe 5 minutes at most. Then, I just export to max, UV seams to hard edges, do some test bakes real quick with substance for quick iteration. Then, when the test bakes are fine, I can do a proper pack in 3ds max/IpackThat.

    Maybe there's a quicker way to do it but the method above takes maybe 1/8 - 1/4 of the time compared to a traditional workflow.
  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox veteran polycounter
    beefaroni wrote: »
    It's just easy to quickly and interactively cut UV seams (especially for hard surface).

    I can do seams by hard edges (let's say 60 degrees), put a few more cuts in, click unwrap, check if there are any problems. That right there is like maybe 5 minutes at most. Then, I just export to max, UV seams to hard edges, do some test bakes real quick with substance for quick iteration. Then, when the test bakes are fine, I can do a proper pack in 3ds max/IpackThat.

    Maybe there's a quicker way to do it but the method above takes maybe 1/8 - 1/4 of the time compared to a traditional workflow.

    on top, for retopo you get results almost instantly and on the fly
  • Skumtron
  • Rurouni Strife
    Offline / Send Message
    Rurouni Strife polycounter lvl 10
    Clearly I need to invest some time to improving my UV workflow. Still...doing it in Maya (with custom scripts and stuff). Their new tools help but yea-not as fast as Chris up there lol.
  • Matt Fagan
    Offline / Send Message
    Matt Fagan polycounter lvl 9
    If you're still unwrapping in Maya, then that's your problem.
    I don't know about that, I use Maya for all my UV needs, and I can unwrap anything in a very short amount of time with great efficiency. If I had to make ends meet with another unwrap program. It'd definitely be Unfold 3D, super powerful.

    I still wonder to myself it PTEX will be the next thing to insert itself into the workflow of what a real-time engine will be able to read in the coming future.
  • ScoobyDoofus
    Offline / Send Message
    ScoobyDoofus polycounter lvl 19
    I like IPackThat and use 3D Coat often, but I still use Max and or Silo sometimes to linearize islands or rotate everything so its upright.
    IPackThat can be super efficient and its about as good as a current procedural packer can get I feel, but its still not "clever".

    Then again, I'm the rare guy who likes to dedicate a long time to his UV's, and enjoys it because I tend to get nice results I think.
  • Tobbo
    Offline / Send Message
    Tobbo polycounter lvl 11
    Does everyone still explode models for baking? Do you still use custom cages?
  • dzibarik
    Offline / Send Message
    dzibarik polycounter lvl 10
    @Tobbo: depends on a model as always
  • JedTheKrampus
    Offline / Send Message
    JedTheKrampus polycounter lvl 8
    Sometimes I explode the model because it's reasonably quick to do but I usually only use the most basic of cages possible. Usually I spend <1 minute on a cage.
  • Swizzle
    Offline / Send Message
    Swizzle polycounter lvl 15
    Tobbo wrote: »
    Does everyone still explode models for baking? Do you still use custom cages?

    Depends on the model, but usually. Unless it's something organic that has a very continuous surface and I don't want nasty seams, I almost always explode stuff or export separate chunks of a model and bake them individually.

    I'd really like to have a smart baker that allows you to visually pick which parts of the high poly should bake to which parts of the low, and then calculate ray hits based on mesh continuity. Unfortunately, I'm too stupid to write that kind of tool on my own, and I don't really know anybody who has the necessary skills to make it happen.
  • pior
    Online / Send Message
    pior grand marshal polycounter
    Simply too many things rely on efficiently laid UVs ; and in general, hoping for magic solutions for game art (besides pre-production prototyping and art styles that are procedural by nature of course) misses the point that for games to run in the first place things need to be optimized.

    Games with great performance are almost always the ones sporting the most carefully built assets. I think that's no coincidence :)
  • beefaroni
    Offline / Send Message
    beefaroni sublime tool
    Tobbo wrote: »
    Does everyone still explode models for baking? Do you still use custom cages?

    Substance Baker!!! I've baked some pretty complex hard surface stuff with no problems.

    No exploding or cages! Just match by mesh name.

    I also agree with Pior. Usually after my test bakes are finished I'll go back and really try to straighten as many shells/optimize UVs as much as possible. It's pretty fun with IPackThat because you can see the amount of space wasted so for every asset I try to get that percentage as low as possible.
  • PyrZern
    Offline / Send Message
    PyrZern polycounter lvl 12
    I haven't tried Substance Baker yet.
    So far I just make cage and bake out each item individually. #_# 20+ subtools and I'm dead.
  • ShadowMasterZedx
    I still use maya for UV mapping but i would like to look into other programs someday to speed up the process and better results.
  • Tobbo
    Offline / Send Message
    Tobbo polycounter lvl 11
    beefaroni wrote: »
    Substance Baker!!! I've baked some pretty complex hard surface stuff with no problems.

    No exploding or cages! Just match by mesh name.

    Ah sweet! I'll have to give it a try.
  • ysalex
    Offline / Send Message
    ysalex interpolator
    Mostly I do Uv's by hand in Silo and Maya, but I enjoy it for what it is.

    As for if we need them, yeah. Even if some format or tech that didn't need Uv's took over, I think having the actual mapping would retain its usefullness. UV's are the source of many major resource/asset/time saving strategies.

    Modular assets, texture variants, shared maps etc. Without UV's that stuff isn't going to be as easy or possible.
  • kanga
    Offline / Send Message
    kanga quad damage
    Tobbo wrote: »
    Does everyone still explode models for baking? Do you still use custom cages?
    I used to bake parts seperately but I just did a bunch by exploding the elements and it is a real time saver. If parts are intersecting in a really complicated way I would then bake them seperately, but in future I will try and avoid that.
  • tynew
    Offline / Send Message
    tynew polycounter lvl 9
    beefaroni wrote: »
    It's just easy to quickly and interactively cut UV seams (especially for hard surface).

    I can do seams by hard edges (let's say 60 degrees), put a few more cuts in, click unwrap, check if there are any problems. That right there is like maybe 5 minutes at most. Then, I just export to max, UV seams to hard edges, do some test bakes real quick with substance for quick iteration. Then, when the test bakes are fine, I can do a proper pack in 3ds max/IpackThat.

    Maybe there's a quicker way to do it but the method above takes maybe 1/8 - 1/4 of the time compared to a traditional workflow.

    What you've mentioned you can do with Textools in 3ds Max so how is 3D-Coat any better?
  • MmAaXx
    Offline / Send Message
    MmAaXx polycounter lvl 10
    I use Blender... its free and ready to go. Super fast compared to 3dsmax o maya.
  • Fwap
    Offline / Send Message
    Fwap polycounter lvl 13
    UVing is the fun part! get to unwind a little just moving uv's around.
    Not much can go wrong if you know the tools.

    That being said the current school project i'm on we aren't using UV's.
    Anything that need a texture or a change in the material we handle with unreal's material editor, stuff like world space blending ect.

    Our art style can support this kind of workflow though, not sure if its going to fit every art style.
  • Blond
    Offline / Send Message
    Blond polycounter lvl 9
    It depends of the object seriously. Some can take hours to do properly (especially if you want use tiled textures) on others can be completed in minutes.

    I sincerely hate unwrapping complex mechanical hard surface stuff. You knw the kind of models that have extrusions and holes everywhere...

    I would hate to UV map this for example

    http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/bumblebee_in_transformers_4_age_of_extinction-wide.jpg
  • artquest
    Offline / Send Message
    artquest polycounter lvl 13
    Blond wrote: »
    It depends of the object seriously. Some can take hours to do properly (especially if you want use tiled textures) on others can be completed in minutes.

    I sincerely hate unwrapping complex mechanical hard surface stuff. You knw the kind of models that have extrusions and holes everywhere...

    I would hate to UV map this for example

    http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/bumblebee_in_transformers_4_age_of_extinction-wide.jpg

    Uving for film is so different than Uving for games... I actually find film pipeline uvs easier than uv layout for games. In film it's pretty much just making sure your uvs have less stretching and are aligned for repeating textures and have equal texil density, and most places have really nice automated tools to help you out with those things. Game uvs have to be hand crafted to take advantage of mirroring properly (no visible seams is harder than you think!)
  • Dataday
    Offline / Send Message
    Dataday polycounter lvl 8
    Snefer wrote: »
    I dont know, making UVs is a very very small time of the production of an asset for me. Dont get everyones issues with it :P


    Well that's because you use the dark magic that is Modo's UV Toolset. With 901 it became even more stupid simple. =)
    (https://youtu.be/7PHdNBxJMHk )
  • Tobbo
    Offline / Send Message
    Tobbo polycounter lvl 11
    Yeah I'm really liking unwrapping in 901, at least for hard surface stuff. I haven't tried it with organic models yet.
  • Dataday
    Offline / Send Message
    Dataday polycounter lvl 8
    Tobbo wrote: »
    Yeah I'm really liking unwrapping in 901, at least for hard surface stuff. I haven't tried it with organic models yet.

    Organics is pretty easy, especially if you use Greg Brown's macro magic. Ends up being a one click solution most of the time.
    http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=151832
  • Swizzle
    Offline / Send Message
    Swizzle polycounter lvl 15
    Dataday wrote: »
    Well that's because you use the dark magic that is Modo's UV Toolset. With 901 it became even more stupid simple. =)
    (https://youtu.be/7PHdNBxJMHk )

    Holy crap. I hadn't seen this video before. Guess it's time to upgrade again!

    I don't care too much about the UDIM stuff, but literally everything else in that video is a laundry list of features I've been wanting for a while.
  • sprunghunt
    Offline / Send Message
    sprunghunt polycounter
    The new tools in maya 2016 and max 2016 are really advanced. Also zbrush's UV master does a decent job for some things too. If you're taking a long time unwrapping things - it's not the tools.
  • Deathstick
    Offline / Send Message
    Deathstick polycounter lvl 7
    UV Mapping is the part where I get to relax and listen to the soothing sound of the waterfalls as I meditate with the wind in my hair and my mouse at my fingertips.

    Aka I used to hate it but now I love it as my mental break. Automation tools for unwrapping is cool and all and I do use them, but I still sometimes like to do it a bit more manually/I try to have the islands created, oriented, and positioned in a manner that makes it easier for me to texture and quickly locate versus just being concerned about space. It's just so relaxing rotating and moving around :D

    That said, I am curious to give 3D Coat a try. Do you think it's worth it to buy if I already have Max, Zbrush, and Substance Painter?
  • Shadownami92
    Offline / Send Message
    Shadownami92 polycounter lvl 7
    UV mapping used to take forever but yeah most newer UV tools make it almost always it a task that takes less than an hour. I personally use Blender's UV tools and only have to do a few tweaks after I set the seams up and have it auto unwrap from that.

    And I imagine if it had better packing code in like some plugins I've seen it would get even faster.
  • JordanN
    Offline / Send Message
    JordanN interpolator
    I kinda agree with you OP. While I'm not against UV mapping, I do think some things about it sound outdated in 2015.

    An example is UV layout. People get criticized when their UV map contains lots of empty space, or if they don't overlap/mirror certain UV islands. I get the logic behind avoiding this but in a video game, who cares?

    You're never going to see how a person UV mapped a model while in game. You'll only see the final textures + shaders.
  • Tobbo
    Offline / Send Message
    Tobbo polycounter lvl 11
    Because our job as artists is not only to make beautiful artwork, but to also do it efficiently and technically sound.

    Technical limitations are still very much a thing. Everyone wants the most beautiful artwork and the game to run at a steady 60 fps as well!
  • passerby
    Offline / Send Message
    passerby polycounter lvl 12
    Really i kinda zone out doing UV work, find it relaxing and its fast and easy. Also with creative uv's and shaders you can do some really cool things for optimizing texture space or creating effects.
  • JordanN
    Offline / Send Message
    JordanN interpolator
    Tobbo wrote: »
    Because our job as artists is not only to make beautiful artwork, but to also do it efficiently and technically sound.

    Technical limitations are still very much a thing. Everyone wants the most beautiful artwork and the game to run at a steady 60 fps as well!

    But the people who play games aren't going to notice all that work that went into optimizing that UV island. They're only going to be impressed by what the final visuals look like.

    Just like how, when I go to an art museum, the first thing I'm going to notice is what each painting looks like, and not whether the artist had used a ruler to measure every line.
  • passerby
    Offline / Send Message
    passerby polycounter lvl 12
    JordanN wrote: »
    But the people who play games aren't going to notice all that work that went into optimizing that UV island. They're only going to be impressed by what the final visuals look like.

    Just like how, when I go to an art museum, the first thing I'm going to notice is what each painting looks like, and not whether the artist had used a ruler to measure every line.

    but people will notice if it runs at a low fps, or hogs all there vram due to stuff taking up way more texture space than it is actually using.
  • WarrenM
    JordanN wrote: »
    But the people who play games aren't going to notice all that work that went into optimizing that UV island. They're only going to be impressed by what the final visuals look like.

    Just like how, when I go to an art museum, the first thing I'm going to notice is what each painting looks like, and not whether the artist had used a ruler to measure every line.

    But ... if you're efficient with your UVs you get better texture resolution for the same memory cost. Why, as a professional, would you not pursue that?
  • Selaznog
    Offline / Send Message
    Selaznog polycounter lvl 8
    I just use Maya to UV stuff with no plugins and it's always a quick process for me. Also, I'm one of those weirdos who loves UVing. It feels like a game to me and it's kind of chill with good music and a good beer. Then again I mostly only UV low poly characters
  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox veteran polycounter
    JordanN wrote: »
    I kinda agree with you OP. While I'm not against UV mapping, I do think some things about it sound outdated in 2015.

    An example is UV layout. People get criticized when their UV map contains lots of empty space, or if they don't overlap/mirror certain UV islands. I get the logic behind avoiding this but in a video game, who cares?

    You're never going to see how a person UV mapped a model while in game. You'll only see the final textures + shaders.

    Your point is none, just look at the reception of Rage, arguably one of the best Looking games at that time. Players just complained about the texture resolution in closeup.
    Which was a direct impact of megatexture a system for great unique texturing, but one that takes a hell lot of memory.
    While here megatexture was a reason, a game with efficient UV usage will definitely have a crisper texture resolution than one where the artists didn't care enough to optimize properly.
  • JordanN
    Offline / Send Message
    JordanN interpolator
    I think you guys are missing my point. I already said I acknowledge the logic behind uv efficiency.

    What my complaint is that in terms of final presentation, you are never going to be confronted with an actual UV island in a game. Again, how many gamers or game reviews are out there praising "man, this game has nicely mirrored fruit textures"? It's this step I wouldn't mind seeing removed from the pipeline if it was possible.

    Regarding memory usage, I believe diminishing returns plays a role here. The impact of having 100% efficient UV's is likely a small hit on visuals then it was perhaps 20 years ago (on consoles were 1mb of memory had to fit everything, compared to today's consoles that have 8GB of memory).

    This is the definition of dated. Something that proved very beneficial in the past, but doesn't quite yield the same benefits today. Does not mean this techique is wrong, only that by today's standard, we should strive to replace it with something better.
  • Obscura
    Offline / Send Message
    Obscura grand marshal polycounter
    Jordan - It looks like you are not seeing how this is related to optimization, and why its important. You are right, players won't care and see how its set up. But you can't build a house from paper, just cause noone will see it because its inside the walls. An another thing, you should completely forget the 8k textures yet. :D It has insane memory requirements, and even it can work on the high end pcs, you should think about lower machines, and poor users too. A 8k texture need 50mb if its compressed, and then its not hard to figure out that you would kill gbs of memory with a few assets with 8k textures. One require at least 3 of them. Probably it won't really be used in the next few years. An another point of making efficient uvmaps is that you can achieve better pixel density with it, but I think this is already mentioned.
  • passerby
    Offline / Send Message
    passerby polycounter lvl 12
    JordanN wrote: »
    I think you guys are missing my point. I already said I acknowledge the logic behind uv efficiency.

    What my complaint is that in terms of final presentation, you are never going to be confronted with an actual UV island in a game. Again, how many gamers or game reviews are out there praising "man, this game has nicely mirrored fruit textures"? It's this step I wouldn't mind seeing removed from the pipeline if it was possible.

    Regarding memory usage, I believe diminishing returns plays a role here. The impact of having 100% efficient UV's is likely a small hit on visuals then it was perhaps 20 years ago (on consoles were 1mb of memory had to fit everything, compared to today's consoles that have 8GB of memory).

    It is still like that though, lots of optimization has to happen to run on the limited memory on consoles and mobile. The limited time good uv work takes is worth the gains by a pretty big margin. Why use 2k map if with good uv work you can accomplish the same in half or a quarter of the res. Most games have hundreds to thousands of textures so wasted texture space adds up fast.

    Also what about cases where good UV work actually improves the art workflow, like mapping to existing trim or decal sheets. Or simply through creative UV working creating a new prop that only uses the texture space in a pre existing texture.
  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox veteran polycounter
    Of course a player will not see what has been done to optimize, if they do the optimization is possibly not very well done.
    What they will see is, that the game runs smootg and is nice and sharp looking. And this goes directly back to proper UVing.

    But it is not only about memory optimizations, but also about workflow. Unless you geberate your textures, painting will be a lot easier with nicely straightened UVs.

    Also if I would not give a damn, i would possibly remove UV mapping from my skills in my resume :P
1
Sign In or Register to comment.