[Weapon] M7 Grenade Launcher (+ M9A1 rifle grenade)

[KaB]

The packed version :

[lucky.BOY]

This should clear some confusion:

You're making me hard. Making sense of hard edges, uvs, normal maps and vertex counts - Polycount Forum

On the packing - good, but could be better. You pretty big gaps between some islands and much smaller between others. You should have equally big gaps with width of 3 pixels on the final resolution of the texture.

[CTRifle]

Going at it from a texturing POV



Like lucky said, keep at least a 3 pixels
Red - packed wayyyy to tightly, youll get pixel bleeding and such like that. Also makes it harder to add detail to edges and such.

Blue - dont put the UVs right to the edges like this, theres no way to expand around the faces then to texture.

[KaB]

3 pixels needed with what size ? I used 2048 so far, but as I noticed I couldn't see the edges on photoshop with this size (when I zoom out to look at everything), I'm now moving to 1024.

So here's a 1024x1024 picture with more than 3 pixels between the closest objects (and seperated smooth groups) :

[KaB]

Texture of the M9A1 :







I'll add more damage details.

Also, lucky you wanted something to written on it, can you tell me what it is ?

[CTRifle]

Dont use just plain black as a background, try a gradient or something else, hard to see nice tho

[KaB]

Uh yea sorry. Just thought the white wouldn't help either, I took black by default.

[lucky.BOY]

Im sorry that I couldnt comment on that last UV layout sooner, but here I am anyway.

Some of the Islands are really out of scale man. Like, shouldnt those two circles be about the same size?



Im perfectly okay with scaling up some islands to utilize the UV space better, but that cannot supplement for proper UV packing. First you need to pack your UVs as best as you can, then you can scale them bit. But not as extremely as you have done here, and moreso why would you scale up the thing that will hardly be seen?

You can have those soft edges on those parts you have shown above, the normal map will correct the smoothing for you, however there are some drawbacks to this method, such mipmaps and DXT compression having far bigger effect on the normal map than they would otherwise had. This topic is IIRC discussed into great depth in that "Youre making me hard" topic I linked above.

To give you some more feedback on the UV, in addition to those horrible disproportions in scale, the thing could be packed a lot more IMO. You got a lot of unused space in there. The spaving between islands looks good now, but try and reorganize the thing a bit. Btw final resolution of the texture ingame will be 512x512 texels, so take that into account.

[KaB]

This circle was kinda already big when I normalized with textool. I didnt scale it up that much.
Having it this big helped me not to get it stretched as hell though, this way I could put the shadow a bit backward and not make the whole inside just a black texture.

Edit : Btw this thing won't be seen either as it'll face the end of the rifle.

[Tim270]

Just one quick thing, always put your uv seams (the green lines) on the bottom and hidden places, seams can become very visible due to compression and different texturing techniques, you always want to keep it out the players vision.

[lucky.BOY]

You could just move the central vertex of that cone a bit back in XYZ space to reduce texture stretching. Giving such a huge piece of texture space to a thing that will only be seen briefly in animation is not economic. It means less space (and aless quality for the texture of the rest of the thing.

And for your edit, the other side of that part of the launcher wil be visible all the time, yet it still has about quarter the size compared to that cone that will be obscured all the time.

What I would suggest is you go back to a save file where its just unwrapped, and pack it again with keeping everything in about the same scale.

[KaB]

Here's how it looks (the texture's size is 512x512) :





I must admit the UVs you highlighted look quite "cloudy", due to the low res. But ... What if I say I'm fine with it ?

PS : I might still add few more details, it's not finished yet.

[lucky.BOY]

The difference in scale is really noticable, and thats just your basic texture down. Every detail you add will make it even more noticable...

I suggest you redo the UVs, and do it properly.

[KaB]

New UVs :

[Spush]

Just texture it in 1024x1024, and reduce the size to 512x512 to compensate for quality loss.

[KaB]

Yea absolutely, that's what Im already doing.

[KaB]

The texture : https://p3d.in/dJDEu/shadeless

Do you guys have cool tools to blend the texure on the seams (something that modifies the texture directly from 3ds max) ?

[Psyrus]

The texture : https://p3d.in/dJDEu/shadeless

Do you guys have cool tools to blend the texure on the seams (something that modifies the texture directly from 3ds max) ?
http://i.imgur.com/DWHJyo9.jpg

What you can do is feather/pad your textures quite a bit, and copy over the last few pixels from both sides of the seam to the other side, and erase with 50% opacity, that's the closest to proper blending you'll get, as far as I know

[Amok@ndy]

Do you guys have cool tools to blend the texure on the seams (something that modifies the texture directly from 3ds max)

its possible in Autodesk Mudbox though might not be neccesary as its quite expensive

[Tim270]

1 min fix, its because there is a contrast right in your background and your uv shell/texture. Rhino has some massive thread on it somewhere, but pretty much your uv borders "bleed" into pixels around them, easiest way is to match your background pixels to those of your uv shell. Google UV padding/texture padding and it should all make sense.