[TEC] Technically based stuff

[gap]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

You can fold that box to 4 to get a lower vt count.
faces will remain the same and just use the same vt in places.

I am sorry but I don't get it. Of course I could overlap all the UV vertices so that they look just one vertex, but to my understanding the different number of vertices in the UV map than in the 3D geometry is only determined by the un-welding of some faces (more unwelding = more edges and more vertices). The only way to reduce again this number is by welding again the un-welded faces, but we can't weld UV faces that are not welded in the 3D geometry. Can we?

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

On putting multiple meshes in an obj? Don't weld the verts and they will remain a separate mesh! Burn your AO, then export ONLY that one mesh.

Yes, indeed but that's not what I was talking about.

Let's say that I have one object composed by two meshes let's call them a and b. the vertex sequence in that object is

v a1
v a2
v a3
v a...
v b1
v b2
v b3
v b...

Now let's say that we want to bake our object together with another object. After the creation of a new UV map (for the AO channel) and the AO baking we separate the combined object into the single meshes composing it, and then we re-compose the original objects. As long as we didn't alter the geometry of any single mesh, vertex order within them should not have changed. But what if the order of the meshes within the re-combined object has changed as a consequence of its separation and re-combination? We would find ourselves with an object so composed

v b1
v b2
v b3
v b...
v a1
v a2
v a3
v a...

Apparently the original object and the re-combined object will only differ in their UV mapping, but to GR2 Editor would be two different objects...

I hope I made myself clearer this time...

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

All things should be fine! Now in Max I have a script the will export all the meshes to separate obj files so it's simple. Maybe Wings has scripting abilities?

I don't think so

[Jeff-Groves]

I think I know what you mean but I'm not positive.
Can you send me example obj files and which version of the GR2 editor you have a problem with?

[gap]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

I think I know what you mean but I'm not positive.
Can you send me example obj files and which version of the GR2 editor you have a problem with?

For the moment I have not good examples that I can send to you. No doubt I will, in case I face problems the next times that I will need to import some objects with their secondary UV map into a GR2 file.

I am not saying that the problem I tried to describe below will necessarily happen, or that all the problems we faced in the past were coming from there, but we should at least agree on the fact that this is something that can happen, and if it happens it can scramble the UV-map import.

[Jeff-Groves]

Originally Posted by gap

we agree on the fact that this is something that can happen, and if it happens it can scramble the UV-map import.

I believe We saw this problem with the new wooden boats or the barrage balloon way back didn't we?
That issue may have been fixed with later releases of TDW's Exporter/Importer?

[gap]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

I believe We saw this problem with the new wooden boats or the barrage balloon way back didn't we?
That issue may have been fixed with later releases of TDW's Exporter/Importer?

Hopefully yes. I remember having had some AO-import problems even using the last release, but I am not 100% sure and I can't say exactly on which model.

As I said, let's face problems as they come. I hope we will import many AO-mapped models in the next months, so we will have plenty of case studies