Skip to 8:30 for the actual explanation. Video reads like one of those auto generated articles where the first 5 paragraphs are just filler. It's called ptex and it uses the same principle as vertex painting, only each face has it's own UV. Also the dread of uv mapping is overstated, it's just that each software has it's own UV workflow. The basic principle is easy, set seams and peel off. Tedious, but not hard.
Ptex does not use the same principle has vertex painting. Its exactly the same has uv mapping. All it does is make every polygon face its own uv island which can be done with regular uvs with any basic 3d software. Under the hood, it does use a different file organization system, but it doesn't bring anything new to the table. After seeing this video, I immediately opened substance painter and in under a minute, I had the same set up
I don’t understand the dread for uv mapping. I just put on a podcast, music or an audiobook and turn my brain off. Maybe for game/real-time artists where you gotta preserve as much space as possible and you can’t really be having tons of udims so it’s almost like playing chess, but for us working in animation and VFX? UVing is so much easier.
@@zedeon6299if it has small objects its best to automap them. No need creating uv maps for small objects that wont be seen. Uvs are for large areas that are readily visible.
Now if only somebody made a Ptex to UV map plugin for Blender, we would have the best of both worlds! I absolutely HATE uwv unwrapping and the tedious process of it all. I hope that AI can eventually replace this 'job' as soon as possible, to make art creation less of a daunting slog.
@@CosplayZine Sorry, I'm not afraid of you replacing me. I have important things that you will never will have, originality, purpose, freewill and courage.
ptex was released as opensource about 10 years ago and some applications tried to integrate it but it was a big failure, thank you for raising this dead man, but please let him return to his grave
UV unwrapping, like Retopology, are things that a computer should be able to do automatically. End of story. Quad Remesher is a life saver, but does anyone know of something similar for 'smart' auto UV unwrapping?
A reminder that UV mapping needn't introduce distorsions, unwanted seams, or stretching, as mentioned in the video, if done properly., depending on the specific application.
@@Tigerhearty sure, you can use 3rd party apps like rizom or unfold 3d to do uv mapping, although unfold3d features are pretty much baked into 3ds max unwrap modifier. I’m of the opinion that stripping down the complexity of the workflow leads to cleaner results.
The idea is to save time, if, like me are a character designer and wanna show products fast that's a step that harms your efficient, ofc if u are a person that work on texturing artist, I'm on your side and u r right but other way....its a hard time consumer if ur not specialized on that
Interesting. Ptex does seem like it would be the most intuitive way to work; it's much closer to the analog counterpart of painting a model. The kind of thing any Tabletop wargaming hobbyist could pick up in an afternoon. UV isn't bad, but it's certainly not nearly as intuitive to someone encountering it the first time. The best thing would be if there was a way to automate a conversion between Ptex UV: at a glance, going from Ptex to UV would seem to require building a single cohesive texture out of many, the UV to Ptex would seem to require taking the faces and creating their own textures based on their current position on the UV grid.
I suspect that, short of a very intelligent algorithm or well trained ML model for the task, the process of converting between ptex and UV would be to make the map you didn't start out with manually (ptex or UV) and then project from the one you started with onto the other. I've made procedural textures with a mixture of non-uv mappings (think world-space or local-space coordinate systems) and you can then create the UV and project onto it (bake it).
I could see how it would be useful to utilize PTec early in to rough out colors & a sense for the character/model before committing to the textures permanently. In case some deforming or further editing is needed on the model. Once done texturing, going back to create the UV map(s) & backing that high resolution texture on to a single (or lower number of set of) image(s). For animating scenes (like for promo work) the Ptec could still be used & the uv mapped textures could be utilized in the game or while quickly roughing out the animation if they're faster to render.
How is it more painful in Blender than anywhere else? Back in the day Blender was leading in UV unwrapping, i don't think anyone had automatic UV unwrapping tools in 2004, in Max you got to choose between sphere model, cylinder model, box model, a handful more, and placing all UV map vertices manually. Though to be fair i guess others have run with those ideas since, while Blender's tools stayed the same.
i used Ptex way back like 12 years ago maybe, and it's a shame this technology is not being supported and carried over to nowadays applications, Maya still render it i think without any issues
There's excellent free tools to make it way faster and more enjoyable. in Blender you have two incredible free add-ons: DreamUV and TexTools (both are updated for Blednr 4.1). DreamUV can automatically unwrap a model for a hotspot altas and/or trimsheet, and TexTools makes manipulating UVs manually way, way faster. Also Blender's default UV packing is finally super efficient. No more 3rd party add-ons to do just that. It's also crazy fast.
You make UV mapping sound like torture. I’d rather UV map than retopo all day. But I guess you need to do this for a dramatic comparison. I want 10+ minutes of my life bak!
i can get a sense that Ptex for texturing more intuitively would be useful... and perhaps be helpful as a guide for a later stage of traditional unwrapping. for example... a models visual texture might include particular shapes or natural "seams" graphically (metal here, plastic there etc) allowing them to be identified in a more informed way at least. i do something along those lines using the vertex colours.. either to literally colour an object, or as a notepad for the surface of the object. marking parts of objects to help guide the UV unwrapping... plus theres the whole "baking vertex colours" or "image to vertex colours" approach to generate a marked up 2D guide for the image texturing. its actually pretty good that there are some different ways to think about an objects texture and the processes involved. decals for example.. obviously lend themselves to a kind of "stamp" approach, or a solid colour man made section of an object using vertex colours. thanks for the intro to Ptex. hadnt heard of that before
Thanks! Maybe add a follow-up mini video about what software platforms are currently supporting Ptex in their pipelines and outline wht athe workflow looks like and the memory considerations on a sample cube versus a 1Million polygon dense character mesh, etc.,
8:34 - That's distortion and stretching galore if you ask me... It's great that Ptex is "storing textures on a per polygon basis", however i still don't know what the *!%!+%@&# hell it does differently after watching this.
Apparently it's slow to access and not optimized when you get in to very high resolution textures. It's a great concept, but apparently there are some serious issues when used in practice
** but if it's possible to make texturing in Ptex then convert it to UV map it will be the revolution because t doesn't matter how messy your Uwraping is , you never gonno see any seams if your texture perfectly aligned
You can do exactly the same thing with uvs in any 3d software. Make every edge a seam then auto unwrap and auto unpack and then paint like normal. Then you can use triplaner projection and a world space normal map for a more procedural workflow. But why not just make big uv islands? Its far neater and it comes with the most important reason regular uv workflows still dominate. Texturing in a 2d view and uv projection
no, its not vertex colors. Vertex colors is limited by your vert count. This is something far sillier. Its literally the same as regular uvs but with the twist that instead of making uv islands composed of multiple polygons, each polygon face is its own island. You can replicate this in any 3d software by making every edge a seam
Until we get to a point where vertex count doesn't matter, games aren't going to be able to use Ptext because it's just flatten mapping every poly and that really increases the vertices you have to render. I'd imagine games near the end of the UE5 life cycle might be able to handle it, but we'll see.
With all of the optimization efforts coming to game engines these days, im shocked that PTEX or something similar hasnt become a performant alternative. I wonder what the hurdles are. For me i would love to replace vertex colors as my default preliminary paint method, the only performant painting usage for that comes out of Zbrush.
One of the problems with something like PTEX for games is that the number of verticies in a model is increased wherever you have a uv split so for something like ptex you're massively exploding your vertex count even if it looks like it's the same number of quads/tris. There's also the issue of seams becoming more visible as your textures swap to their lower mip maps.
from the explanation from Video - you have Multiple Texture Atlases for a Single Model - and the name of the Game is to Have as Little of that as Possible... So it is 100% Counterproductive (at the moment) in Gamming... But in Movies where the Name of the Game is have Highest Possible Detail then it Becomes Extremly Useull... Since they are Using Super Computers to Render the Movies... High Poly Models is Becoming Less of and Issue these Days (Thanks to Unreal Engine Nanite and Similar Stuff). THat Doesn't mean you can have 1 M polys for Evey model... But it does Help xD...
I hope someone creates a tool to use AI image stable diffusion to texture an unmapped model. text to img then img to img like traditional stable diffusion, but working with 3d assets and accounting for view angles.
UV is relaxing, placing the seams and see your work unwrap on a specific way, layed on the UV layout, to form the final result, it's really good to my brain x)
@@sh-creative Well, I don't make complex geometry, but even so, when I model I also think where to put the UVs, so... yes. Better take more time making UVs than having bad UV coverage and/or having problems later on the line :) (if automatic UVs are used)
Ptex is a nice way to texture your model. Zbrush kind of does this in a way and then you can have it auto UV unwrap the model and be done. I don't know why we don't have specific program that would let you import your created mesh, paint on it and create your materials, and then auto UV. And, this program would be solely made for that purpose and do it well.
@@M_k-zi3tn - Yes and no. I was more thinking of along the lines of just being able to place/paint textures on your model and then have zbrush auto UV the model when done. Not to say that AUV is not apart of that. It is similar. I more thinking of the application of the textures.
@M_k-zi3tn 100% agreed. I kind of miss the quixel suite. Lol. Quixel mixer is ok... just not the same. Oh well. If photogrammetry or gaussian splats ever allow for ai theme manipulation, geometry cleanup, and accurate collision, that might be the future of asset creation. Scan in the chair, tell ai to make it cartoonist and add collision... out pops a game ready Asset.
I can live with UV Mapping. However, I'm in the videogames industry and I would kill to have an alternative for retopology. Unreal is doing it well in this aspect with Nanite but still a long way to go.
Nanite isn't a retopo tool, all it does is decimate your model depending on how far it is. You can already do the same in blender if you want that kind of "retopology"
@@alexandre.m You're right. Nanite is not a retopo tool. I was meaning that Nanite lets you throw unoptimized models into the engine and it does the rest. Obviously it is not going to be optimal, but most of the time you don't have to worry about decimating, creating a good topology, or creating and setting up LODs. That's saving quite a lot of time to artists.
@@trueh You're right, this is definitely going to save a lot of time to artists, but I fear it will be overused and lead to even more unoptimized games. People are tired of games taking so much space
@@alexandre.m Yes, that's true. In addition performance with Nanite is not that good. I tried it on a fair detailed scene together with Lumen and I actually struggled quite a lot to get 60FPS at 1080p with a RTX 3060. I suppose that we will have to wait to see how things evolve.
Or... we could just hit Smart UV Project and Bam! We get a UV ready to use and possibly... as bad as this. I mean the worse that smart uv project could do is separating each and every face which would be like this right?
@@3dMistri texture painting is just the act of painting your textures. This video is about uv vs ptex. A step that you need to do before you can texture paint. Honestly tho, ptex is the same has uvs. It has no right to be considered an alternative system since all it does is make every polygon its own uv island
Skip to 8:30 for the actual explanation. Video reads like one of those auto generated articles where the first 5 paragraphs are just filler.
It's called ptex and it uses the same principle as vertex painting, only each face has it's own UV.
Also the dread of uv mapping is overstated, it's just that each software has it's own UV workflow. The basic principle is easy, set seams and peel off. Tedious, but not hard.
Ptex does not use the same principle has vertex painting. Its exactly the same has uv mapping. All it does is make every polygon face its own uv island which can be done with regular uvs with any basic 3d software. Under the hood, it does use a different file organization system, but it doesn't bring anything new to the table. After seeing this video, I immediately opened substance painter and in under a minute, I had the same set up
I don’t understand the dread for uv mapping. I just put on a podcast, music or an audiobook and turn my brain off. Maybe for game/real-time artists where you gotta preserve as much space as possible and you can’t really be having tons of udims so it’s almost like playing chess, but for us working in animation and VFX? UVing is so much easier.
It's not hard but time consuming, depends on the assets, if the assets has hundreds of small objects it will consume a lot of time to UV unwrap
For the example is uv unwrapping a train model that I worked on, it took me a whole day to UV it
@@zedeon6299if it has small objects its best to automap them. No need creating uv maps for small objects that wont be seen. Uvs are for large areas that are readily visible.
@@zedeon6299Is
headus UVLayout a good software for UV unwrapping/editing?
I don’t have time. Honestly,
Now if only somebody made a Ptex to UV map plugin for Blender, we would have the best of both worlds! I absolutely HATE uwv unwrapping and the tedious process of it all. I hope that AI can eventually replace this 'job' as soon as possible, to make art creation less of a daunting slog.
Lol I opened comment section to comment exactly this.
AI may just replace you not long after that.
@@CosplayZine Sorry, I'm not afraid of you replacing me. I have important things that you will never will have, originality, purpose, freewill and courage.
oh yeah right even more unoptimization under unreal engine 5 games, great. Go make 128 GB nvidia cards before suggesting something this stupid.
Well no, actually you steel need UVs and always need UVs.
And don't wait for AI or something, just use Houdini and his procedural UV unwrapping ;-)
ptex was released as opensource about 10 years ago and some applications tried to integrate it but it was a big failure, thank you for raising this dead man, but please let him return to his grave
UV unwrapping, like Retopology, are things that a computer should be able to do automatically. End of story. Quad Remesher is a life saver, but does anyone know of something similar for 'smart' auto UV unwrapping?
A reminder that UV mapping needn't introduce distorsions, unwanted seams, or stretching, as mentioned in the video, if done properly., depending on the specific application.
it usually does require seams on certain topologies
especially if you use programs like unfold3D now it's very very precise and faster then before.
@@Tigerhearty sure, you can use 3rd party apps like rizom or unfold 3d to do uv mapping, although unfold3d features are pretty much baked into 3ds max unwrap modifier. I’m of the opinion that stripping down the complexity of the workflow leads to cleaner results.
The idea is to save time, if, like me are a character designer and wanna show products fast that's a step that harms your efficient, ofc if u are a person that work on texturing artist, I'm on your side and u r right but other way....its a hard time consumer if ur not specialized on that
you pay for convenience on either side of the equation. ptex is detrimentally inflexible for realtime artist workflows
2 min of information presented in 10 minutes, Unsubscribe 😮💨
Interesting. Ptex does seem like it would be the most intuitive way to work; it's much closer to the analog counterpart of painting a model. The kind of thing any Tabletop wargaming hobbyist could pick up in an afternoon. UV isn't bad, but it's certainly not nearly as intuitive to someone encountering it the first time.
The best thing would be if there was a way to automate a conversion between Ptex UV: at a glance, going from Ptex to UV would seem to require building a single cohesive texture out of many, the UV to Ptex would seem to require taking the faces and creating their own textures based on their current position on the UV grid.
I suspect that, short of a very intelligent algorithm or well trained ML model for the task, the process of converting between ptex and UV would be to make the map you didn't start out with manually (ptex or UV) and then project from the one you started with onto the other.
I've made procedural textures with a mixture of non-uv mappings (think world-space or local-space coordinate systems) and you can then create the UV and project onto it (bake it).
I could see how it would be useful to utilize PTec early in to rough out colors & a sense for the character/model before committing to the textures permanently. In case some deforming or further editing is needed on the model. Once done texturing, going back to create the UV map(s) & backing that high resolution texture on to a single (or lower number of set of) image(s). For animating scenes (like for promo work) the Ptec could still be used & the uv mapped textures could be utilized in the game or while quickly roughing out the animation if they're faster to render.
0:01 UV unwrapping is pure pleasure and easiest part of 3D. *_It's just Blender who turn this into pain_*
How is it more painful in Blender than anywhere else? Back in the day Blender was leading in UV unwrapping, i don't think anyone had automatic UV unwrapping tools in 2004, in Max you got to choose between sphere model, cylinder model, box model, a handful more, and placing all UV map vertices manually.
Though to be fair i guess others have run with those ideas since, while Blender's tools stayed the same.
Ptex seems to be more oriented to movies, Films and other specialized CG cases right now. I'll stick with UV's for simple modeling.
i used Ptex way back like 12 years ago maybe, and it's a shame this technology is not being supported and carried over to nowadays applications, Maya still render it i think without any issues
This video should've been 2 minutes long at max. A lot of nothing was said here with meaningless blabbing. Waste of time.
UVmapping is the worst part of 3D modeling
There's excellent free tools to make it way faster and more enjoyable. in Blender you have two incredible free add-ons: DreamUV and TexTools (both are updated for Blednr 4.1).
DreamUV can automatically unwrap a model for a hotspot altas and/or trimsheet, and TexTools makes manipulating UVs manually way, way faster.
Also Blender's default UV packing is finally super efficient. No more 3rd party add-ons to do just that. It's also crazy fast.
You make UV mapping sound like torture. I’d rather UV map than retopo all day. But I guess you need to do this for a dramatic comparison. I want 10+ minutes of my life bak!
Wait so according to you, a solution to UV seams is to have... more seams? Every polygon is surrounded by seams?
i can get a sense that Ptex for texturing more intuitively would be useful... and perhaps be helpful as a guide for a later stage of traditional unwrapping. for example... a models visual texture might include particular shapes or natural "seams" graphically (metal here, plastic there etc) allowing them to be identified in a more informed way at least. i do something along those lines using the vertex colours.. either to literally colour an object, or as a notepad for the surface of the object. marking parts of objects to help guide the UV unwrapping... plus theres the whole "baking vertex colours" or "image to vertex colours" approach to generate a marked up 2D guide for the image texturing. its actually pretty good that there are some different ways to think about an objects texture and the processes involved. decals for example.. obviously lend themselves to a kind of "stamp" approach, or a solid colour man made section of an object using vertex colours. thanks for the intro to Ptex. hadnt heard of that before
who made the art in the thumbnail?
Thanks! Maybe add a follow-up mini video about what software platforms are currently supporting Ptex in their pipelines and outline wht athe workflow looks like and the memory considerations on a sample cube versus a 1Million polygon dense character mesh, etc.,
8:34 - That's distortion and stretching galore if you ask me...
It's great that Ptex is "storing textures on a per polygon basis", however i still don't know what the *!%!+%@&# hell it does differently after watching this.
Apparently it's slow to access and not optimized when you get in to very high resolution textures. It's a great concept, but apparently there are some serious issues when used in practice
Ptex was a fad a few years ago, but serious studios are all working with UDIMs now. Ptex is not very materialx or USD friendly.
**
but if it's possible to make texturing in Ptex then convert it to UV map it will be the revolution because t doesn't matter how messy your Uwraping is , you never gonno see any seams if your texture perfectly aligned
Looks cool but it seems like it did not catch on
2020 were blender ptex posts …
UV with all edges being seams then. The "great" way you explained it essentially sounds like just that.
Why hasn’t AI taken care of this problem yet….said no one ….same goes for retopology!
0:20 and all that's left is the easy texturing part
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Good one!
Are we talking about ptex? Its like over 10 years old.
i mean as lazy as it is ill stick to procedural textures in blender, and ues uv smart project just to save time.
Not my problem
*procedes to press Smart UV Map in Blender*
i blasted years in understanding uv unwrapping and the addons for that
The difference between Ptex and Blender Texture Painting?
You can do exactly the same thing with uvs in any 3d software. Make every edge a seam then auto unwrap and auto unpack and then paint like normal. Then you can use triplaner projection and a world space normal map for a more procedural workflow. But why not just make big uv islands? Its far neater and it comes with the most important reason regular uv workflows still dominate. Texturing in a 2d view and uv projection
Is this vertex coloring.
no, its not vertex colors. Vertex colors is limited by your vert count. This is something far sillier. Its literally the same as regular uvs but with the twist that instead of making uv islands composed of multiple polygons, each polygon face is its own island. You can replicate this in any 3d software by making every edge a seam
@bobsteven2363 Oh!... and I thought its more elaborate than that
@@horsethi3f well, it does have its own file type and data management system. But that's where the differences end
Awesome
Evaluated it but we had no real use for it in the end.
Until we get to a point where vertex count doesn't matter, games aren't going to be able to use Ptext because it's just flatten mapping every poly and that really increases the vertices you have to render. I'd imagine games near the end of the UE5 life cycle might be able to handle it, but we'll see.
only issue is no one supports it any more i don’t think sadly! -
That's not to say a Blender Add-on couldn't be created that would be capable of doing this, right?
@@Jadebones I would love a cinema4d one.. but main issue is other than mari.. substance doesn’t support ptex
Yes they do. Its just so old no one really talks about it.
c4d doesn’t neither does substance …your limited to pretty much mari and Mac and maya@@inkman002
Udims is a happy medium to Ptex and Basic one block UV mapping.
Ptex was used in Bolt that came out in 2008, so the tech might be there already in 2006 or prior...it's almost a 20 year old tech...
With all of the optimization efforts coming to game engines these days, im shocked that PTEX or something similar hasnt become a performant alternative. I wonder what the hurdles are. For me i would love to replace vertex colors as my default preliminary paint method, the only performant painting usage for that comes out of Zbrush.
One of the problems with something like PTEX for games is that the number of verticies in a model is increased wherever you have a uv split so for something like ptex you're massively exploding your vertex count even if it looks like it's the same number of quads/tris. There's also the issue of seams becoming more visible as your textures swap to their lower mip maps.
from the explanation from Video - you have Multiple Texture Atlases for a Single Model - and the name of the Game is to Have as Little of that as Possible...
So it is 100% Counterproductive (at the moment) in Gamming... But in Movies where the Name of the Game is have Highest Possible Detail then it Becomes Extremly Useull...
Since they are Using Super Computers to Render the Movies...
High Poly Models is Becoming Less of and Issue these Days (Thanks to Unreal Engine Nanite and Similar Stuff). THat Doesn't mean you can have 1 M polys for Evey model...
But it does Help xD...
I hope someone creates a tool to use AI image stable diffusion to texture an unmapped model. text to img then img to img like traditional stable diffusion, but working with 3d assets and accounting for view angles.
If this is. Free then it's good, otherwise forgot this😂
"free" and yet expensive because the average pc would die.
that looks quite usefull
wth is this video..
if someday there's a technology that can convert ptex into UV maps, i think it will be a game changer and solve the memory issue
So Ptex is like vertex painting but It's actually individual face painting ?
UV is relaxing, placing the seams and see your work unwrap on a specific way, layed on the UV layout, to form the final result, it's really good to my brain x)
@@sh-creative Well, I don't make complex geometry, but even so, when I model I also think where to put the UVs, so... yes. Better take more time making UVs than having bad UV coverage and/or having problems later on the line :) (if automatic UVs are used)
This was extremely interesting. Is ptex possible with blender. Would love to try it.
substance painter should implement this ptex tech in their uv section.
Will Blender ever have Ptex support again?
Blender has something kind of sort of similar called vertex paint.
Vertex painting is old as hell and isn't a blender exlusive. Maya had had it forever anf Zbrush has polypaint which is great actually.
wow! Imagine if Blender has sth like this!!
for what? the average user doesnt have enough ram/vram at all. and its fucking slow, like 100 times slower
if the objects has bevel applied then it become a real pain in ass
there are unwrapper which can deal pretty good with it, not in blender tho
Ptex is a nice way to texture your model. Zbrush kind of does this in a way and then you can have it auto UV unwrap the model and be done. I don't know why we don't have specific program that would let you import your created mesh, paint on it and create your materials, and then auto UV. And, this program would be solely made for that purpose and do it well.
Are you talking about AUV tiles?
@@M_k-zi3tn - Yes and no. I was more thinking of along the lines of just being able to place/paint textures on your model and then have zbrush auto UV the model when done. Not to say that AUV is not apart of that. It is similar. I more thinking of the application of the textures.
@@Candlestickstudio Oh ok i get it.
I wish they would add more texturing features into Zbrush. That would be amazing
@M_k-zi3tn 100% agreed. I kind of miss the quixel suite. Lol. Quixel mixer is ok... just not the same. Oh well. If photogrammetry or gaussian splats ever allow for ai theme manipulation, geometry cleanup, and accurate collision, that might be the future of asset creation. Scan in the chair, tell ai to make it cartoonist and add collision... out pops a game ready Asset.
I can live with UV Mapping. However, I'm in the videogames industry and I would kill to have an alternative for retopology. Unreal is doing it well in this aspect with Nanite but still a long way to go.
Nanite isn't a retopo tool, all it does is decimate your model depending on how far it is. You can already do the same in blender if you want that kind of "retopology"
@@alexandre.m You're right. Nanite is not a retopo tool. I was meaning that Nanite lets you throw unoptimized models into the engine and it does the rest. Obviously it is not going to be optimal, but most of the time you don't have to worry about decimating, creating a good topology, or creating and setting up LODs. That's saving quite a lot of time to artists.
@@trueh You're right, this is definitely going to save a lot of time to artists, but I fear it will be overused and lead to even more unoptimized games. People are tired of games taking so much space
@@alexandre.m Yes, that's true. In addition performance with Nanite is not that good. I tried it on a fair detailed scene together with Lumen and I actually struggled quite a lot to get 60FPS at 1080p with a RTX 3060. I suppose that we will have to wait to see how things evolve.
Awesome. Totally awesome.
That sounds cool, UVs are every 3D artist worse nightmare ^^ if this makes it more friendly, it's definitly a plus ;) thanks for sharing as usual ;)
Or... we could just hit Smart UV Project and Bam! We get a UV ready to use and possibly... as bad as this. I mean the worse that smart uv project could do is separating each and every face which would be like this right?
are you talking about Texture Painting ??? why using such complex term Ptex when whole industry knows texture painting................
I guess you don't know what you are talking about... its about uv's vs ptex...
You would still need to unwrap the mesh to do texture painting.
@@PrefoX you mean Ptex and texture painting are two different things....
yes Ptex is a totally different workflow @@3dMistri
@@3dMistri texture painting is just the act of painting your textures. This video is about uv vs ptex. A step that you need to do before you can texture paint. Honestly tho, ptex is the same has uvs. It has no right to be considered an alternative system since all it does is make every polygon its own uv island