3 ms·
Interesting paper for someone fiddling with implicit surfaces, but it's gonna take a little while to digest it. Also there's no examples of resulting UV maps us
by whizzter 1y ago
Interesting paper for someone fiddling with implicit surfaces, but it's gonna take a little while to digest it. Also there's no examples of resulting UV maps used in this (while on-model painting is simplified, afaik classically artists still preferred to get clearly delineated maps to modify in regular painting software even if stuff like Substance painter seems to have shifted that).
Implicit surface modelling tools are still evolving quickly, and one point that seems overlooked is how this would tie with authoring tools (since this is about a fairly raw numeric algorithm solution).
Post-modelling it should hold up, but would the maps retain similarity (or enable transferability) if the implicit model structure changes?
Imagine 2 disjoint spheres in space, the user drags them together, would this algorithm want to merge the UV mapping of them if they are smoothly joined? (no sharp creases).
- baptiste-genest 1y agoHi, I'm the first author of the article. Thank you very much for your interest in the method! For the 2 spheres, it's as you wish ! It depends on where you place the uv system in the CSG tree, if it is above a single sphere then it will remain on it, if it's above the union, the field should extent on both. The main interest of the method is the fact that the output remains implicit so one can easily plug it in a CSG pipeline.
- whizzter 1y agoRight, so in the case of the UV connecting to the 2 sphere's in the CSG if one uses a smoothunion function, would the UV islands join "from each direction" in a predictable fashion as the spheres overlap more and more?
- baptiste-genest 1y agoIf I understood what you mean, yes! This example can be seen in the fast-forward: https://youtu.be/dK5JPHylzOg?si=zDHwaOL_xtx-_TJk https://youtu.be/dK5JPHylzOg?si=zDHwaOL_xtx-_TJk