Mesh UV Map Questions - How to use the entire map space?

[Toysoldier Thor]

I am sure that these are easy answers to my questions but I am not sure how to solve it - if it is even solvable.  So I am asking the Mesh Experts in this crowd.

Background: I am using Zbrush 4R5.  What you see here as an example is a mesh model I quickly created of a wooden spool for thread as displayed / rezzed in the SL Beta grid.  I am showing three images in the capture below.  The main picture is a shot of the Spool from its inside and in edit mode so you can see some of the mesh wireframe.  The top image is the Spool as it looks rezzed in SL.  The third image is the Texture UV map for the spool.

So here are my Questions:

ONE:  

If you look at the UV map (its a 1024x1024 map), you can see that the map only uses about half of the available map space.  I would like to be able to have the model use as much of the UV map space as possible so that it can increase the resolution quality on the model.  I am losing about 50% of the available texture pixels of resolution.

Is there any way (solution,process, parameter to set, etc) that I could use the entire UV map?  Why is the UV map not using more of the 1024x1024 map space?

TWO: 

I suspect I know the answer to this but if you look in the hole at the top of the spool you can see that the inside of the model is alpha and as such you can see right thru it.  Other than closing the holes, is there any way to non-alpha the inside of the model?

Thanks in advance

[Rahkis Andel]

There's a few different ways. You could add additional seams so that there are more separate islands that can be moved around to fill up more of the map space.

You should also be able to rotate and resize your island -- on a diagonal and sized up it should fill up a lot more space. I couldn't tell you how to do this in Zbrush, though. I'm a Blender user.

Edit: Sorry, I'm an idiot. I totally missed the second part of your question.

I would personally bridge the two holes so you aren't seeing into the mesh.

This has nothing to do with alphas -- Games don't display backfaces (The side of a polygon facing opposite of it's normal). Unless you cap the hole of your spool or bridge the holes together (as it would be in reality), you're always going to see through it when you're looking at the backfaces of your object.

In my opinion, If that spool is going to be set on a spinning wheel or sewing machine, you'll never see inside of it anyway, so it doesn't matter. If it will be sitting out, you aren't really saving anything by omitting those inner faces, so you should just include them.

Nowadays, saving a few polys at the expense of visual appeal is not really necessary, so that shouldn't be your first priority. That said, I feel like your spool could look just as good with a little more optimization. I am seeing a lot of extra edge loops where they aren't needed.

[arton Rotaru]

Here are 2 examples of how I would unwrap a spool. If I had left out the inner part of the spool, the second UV map could take up almost the whole UV space. But you have to deal with some distortion. Personally I would prefer the UV map in the first image. It's almost distortion free and easy to texture. You have to deal with a few more seams though.

Both UV maps have evenly scaled UV shells. Which is why there is some empty space still.

 

.

[Rahkis Andel]

I did the same experiment and I prefer the bottom result because a wooden spool would be expected to be made out of the same piece of wood.

You'd have to deal with the wood grain direction in each island in the first example and it would be tough to get it to line up (tough enough that I wouldn't even try).

[arton Rotaru]

Hm, I would still prefer the distortion free model on the left.

This is just a single wood texture slapped on the entire canvas.

[Rahkis Andel]

You're right. I tried it again and changed my mind.

[Nacy Nightfire]

The uv mapper plug-in for Zbrush is very imprecise and difficult to work with.  It's fine to roughly uv organic shapes, but its hard to optimize the uvs for a hard surface object like a spool in Zbrush.  That sort of object is very quick to model  and uv in Blender or any other 3d modeler package (not sculpting package)  with much greater precision.  I happen to really like Zbrush, but it's limited.

That being said it looks from your uv map that you did not utilize the features that UV Mapper offers such as symmetry, set polygroups as island, the paint system to attract and repel seams and the seams from ambient occlusion.  The following examples are two different maps for a spool  

First I set it to use ambient occlusion as its basis:

 

 

The next attempt to uv I seperated parts of the spool into Polygroups and selected split by Polygroups in theUV master set up. I also used the Control Painting feature to guide the plug in to get the seams approximately where I wanted them:

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

You are right that I didn't use oolygroups for the model. When I get home I will cut the model up into polygroups then re UV the model. I normally ceeate polygroups when there are distinct areas of the model that benefits from isolation. But msybe I should cut up into polygroups just to create more islands.

 

With zbrush one does not have to worry about aligning textures across many seans as the modek is painted before the uv maps are even created. So more seams is not an issue.

 

I will show you the results when I try it out.

[Codewarrior Congrejo]

Heya, just to chime in  and support the above;

As Nancy already mentioned unfortunately the UV-Unwrapper  in Zbrush is very good for 'fast' unwrapping of very complex / high desnity models. But the controls are rather painfull and by far can not reach what you can do in a regular 3D Suit.

Hencing the fact that the models being produced in there are barely used in their as-is form anyways. And have to be retopologized or already have a lowpoly version with propper topology being made in another software. Being UV unwrapped also there and not in ZBrush.

One way to solve it is the way she suggested by breaking it into polygroups and make use of the control-painting.

Even though you still have no 'complete' control of how it will 'relax' or spread them out etc.

So in order to have full control and unwrap precisely, controling the full amount they use on the UV texture map, and all other important things when it comes to even more complicated shapes than just that spool (human faces, very complex technical constructs and so on) it's really suggested to get used to having one additional 3D Software of your choice. (In order to fullfill those tasks appropriately)

I have Zbrush in my daily workflow, but there is no way around for a lot of steps to be done in full 3D suits aside from the Freeformer-King: Z-Brush.


Cheers, Code =)

[Toysoldier Thor]

OK got home and called up my model in Zbrush and in a minute I chopped up the model into 5 polygroups, deleted the old UV and told UV Master to create a new UV Map using the Polygroups.  The result is much better as the texture makes up much more of the map.

Thanks for the tip on breaking up the model in Zbrush with polygroups for the purpose of using more of the UV map for texture.  I never thought of using polygroups simply for the purpose of making the UV Map more efficient.

As for the comments that ZSbrush's UV Master not being the best at controling the creation of UV maps, you all are likely correct but when you consider that Zbrush's method of texturing completely prior and in 100% isolation of the creation of the UV maps and that Zbrush users only spend seconds in the UV map creation process, so far I consider it s minor limitation.

Zbrush is the king of creating static models and texturing them.

Someone also commented that the LOD0 model of my spool could be more reduced in polygons by removing many of the edge loops.  I am aware of that but since Zbrush textures / colors the model by actually painting on the polygons of the model, removing too many edge loops for long stretches of the model would cause visible distortions and shifts in texture resolution of there isnt a relatively even distribution of polygons.  As such, I had to place edge loops on areas where there was no change in shape for the purpose of even polygon distribution.

The model is low enough in polycount that I am not worried about using extra polygons - as the texture of the model is a higher priority.

Thanks again all !

[Toysoldier Thor]

OK ... so to take this concept as far as possible, I decided to break up my model into several more polygroups (11 polygroups to be exact) in an attempt to see if I can use up as much texture space on the map as possible.  This only took another minute.  But when I told the Zsculpty plugin to create a DAE and texture map for SecondLife, I was given a failure warning that due to a limitations on SecondLife's mesh models, no more than 8 polygroups can be used (i.e. no more than 8 islands on the texture map).

So I merged a couple polygroups to get the count down to 8 and repeated the process.  This is the resulting UV Map from Zbrush... as you can see, the UV Master did an excellent job automatically to use up as much of the map space to fill with textures data.

[Nacy Nightfire]

You wrote: 

"As for the comments that ZSbrush's UV Master not being the best at controling the creation of UV maps, you all are likely correct but when you consider that Zbrush's method of texturing completely prior and in 100% isolation of the creation of the UV maps and that Zbrush users only spend seconds in the UV map creation process, so far I consider it s minor limitation.

Zbrush is the king of creating static models and texturing them."

I'm glad my suggestion helped you get a better, however not optimal result.  

I want to disabuse any 3d modeler beginners of the notion that ZBrush is the king of static models and texturing, if any such people are reading this thread.  ZBrush has a very solid place in the professional's CG tool box for creating 3d art.  It is not, however,  an optimal stand-alone solution.  Zbrush, is simply one of many tools available, and, like many, has limitations.   

[Toysoldier Thor]

your suggestion did help.

as for your response:

I want to disabuse any 3d modeler beginners of the notion that ZBrush is the king of static models and texturing, if any such people are reading this thread.  ZBrush has a very solid place in the professional's CG tool box for creating 3d art.  It is not, however,  an optimal stand-alone solution.  Zbrush, is simply one of many tools available, and, like many, has limitations.   

 

I do agree that every 3D tool has pros and cons - and that surely includes Zbrush.  But there is a big point in your comment to take note of to put your comments in perspective:  in the professional's CG tool box for creating 3d art

I dare say that the vast majority of 3D mesh creators for SecondLife are NOT professional 3D mesh art creators.  They are like me - amateur / hobbyist mesh creators.  I am sure there is a population of professional 3D artist like you that can and do spend a lot of money for 3D model tool software in order to perfect your career and craft.

But most mesh creators in SL are only making mesh for fun or a small income from secondlife.  I have talked to a lot of new mesh creators and most will stick with Blender only because its free.  When I tell them of ZBRUSH they look at it for a minute and then see it costs $699 for a license and say... no way I am gonna pay for that.  I will suffer with the complexity of Blender.

So... I would doubt very much that most would consider an entire toolbox of usually very expensive 3D tools.... unless of course they are "professional" and make a good living from the craft.

So... if one needs to pick a single 3D tool that is good at a certain type of 3D modeling then Zbrush is a great candidate.  It is not good at other things - like rigging.

But you are correct in the statement for all those professionals out there - but lol I suspect they already knew when you said.

[Nacy Nightfire]

I want to add that just because you created polygroups for the purposes of breaking your mesh up into UV islands, doesn't mean you have to keep these polygroups on export.  After creating your uvs, if you return your model to one polygroup before exporting, you will have only one material group and no complaints from Second Life on upload.  Changing back to one polygroup will not disturb the UVs you made.  

[Nacy Nightfire]

I have to correct a misconception on your part. I'm not a professional CG artist. After  I joined SL in fall of 2007 I began learning 3d art and I'm  self-taught.  When I dabbled in sculpties I used many free programs, including Blender.  I caught the bug and ultimately treated myself to Zbrush which I used for quite a while.  When mesh was introduced I began using Blender almost exclusively.  Over the course of 5 1/2 years I've purchased preowned versions of Lightwave and Poser on Ebay for very little money.   My husband bought me Modo for my birthday about 4 or so years ago when it cost about the same as Zbrush, it's a great modeling program, but I prefer Blender.  I'm simply a hobbiest who had devoted alot of time and some personal resources towards working on 3d art.  

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Nacy Nightfire wrote:

I want to add that just because you created polygroups for the purposes of breaking your mesh up into UV islands, doesn't mean you have to keep these polygroups on export.  After creating your uvs, if you return your model to one polygroup before exporting, you will have only one material group and no complaints from Second Life on upload.  Changing back to one polygroup will not disturb the UVs you made.  

---

Good point on that.... but if there is no penalty to SL or Zbrush in leaving all the polygroups where they are then why return to 1 polygroup?  I think I know what you are saying... If I only split up the model into 8 polygroups to create a more efficient UV map, then its nice to clean them up after. Correct?

[Nacy Nightfire]

I think you wrote that you split your model up into 11 polygroups and got results you were happy with.  Then you tried to export your mesh with all 11 polygroups still assigned  and the exporter warned you it would be a problem. You then reduced the polygroups and re-uvd.  However you didn't need to go to the bother of changing the polygroup count and reprocessing the  uvs. You only needed to remove the polygroups (thus, ending up with the default one) and export.  The UV's you made based on temporarily setting up 11 polygroups would remain.

Again, polygroups become material groups which represent texture faces in Second life.  If the mesh object only has a single texture there's no point exporting with  more then one material group in that case.

 

 

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

Ahhh I got ya!! silly me. 

yes you are correct - I could have made as many UV islands as I wanted then returned the model back to a single polygroup.

forget what I said.

[Rahkis Andel]

May I ask when the last time you used Blender was? I know a point of contention for a lot of people is that Blender used to be a great deal less intuitive in the UI, but that has changed.

That said, your point about Blender being complex is not untrue, but let's put that fact into context -- Compare what Zbrush does to what Blender does:

Blender is a full 3d suite with physics, a game engine, a render engine (with viewport rendering), 3d sculpting, (currently crappy) texture painting, mesh editing, rigging, UV editing, animating, compositing and motion tracking. Yes, I also have to mention It's free and open source.

Zbrush is primarily a (The) 3d sculpting tool.

Blender, 3DS Max, Maya and all the rest of the full 3d suites are going to be more complex than Zbrush by nature because they do more things.

I would argue that the things they allow an artist to do are more benefitial to Second life than the things Zbrush allows an artist to do. Especially if you can only pick 1. In my opinion, the scary thing is that no 3d suite I've ever used (I had access to maya, lightwave and 3ds max before, through school) is better than Blender at -everything-. For the price they ask, that should not be acceptable to the hobbyist.

I apologize for being the one to jump to Blender's defence, but in my eyes, the biggest threat to SL's usability right now are people who don't know what they are doing, but get a "simple", specialized tool like Zbrush and think they can just use everything they sculpt right out of the (mud)box. With the power to make multimillion poly sculpts, comes the great responsibility of understanding topology and the limits of game engines.

Enough of my rant. You will go forth and have a good day!

[Chosen Few]

Very interesting thread so far.  A lot of good advice has already been given, but I figrued I'd throw my two cents in, as well.  Some of this may repeat what some others have already said, but much of it will be new.

First, let me show a few different ways I might UV a spool. 

The main thing to keep in mind as you look at the above examples is that a spool, topologically speaking, is no different from a torus.  In fact, I made the above spool from a torus in Maya, in about 10 seconds. 

Before I talk about the UV's, I'll say a few things briefly about the model.  This model is of course not as organically shaped as the one in the original post, but that's not the point.  With a few more clicks to add some beveling and smoothing, it would look just like it.  I decided to leave it in its base form, though, in order to most easily showcase the basic UV layouts, with as little distraction as possible.  I did include the geometry of the inner wall of the hole (or more accurately, I did not remove it), so nothing is see-through.

Alright, now let's dive into the UV's. 

The layout on the left is basically the default torus layout, with the horizontal edge loops proportionally spaced for minimal texture stretching.  This is first layout one would expect a spool to have, and really doesn't NEED to be changed in any way.  It's as efficient and simple as could be.

The only very minor drawback to this layout is that the top and bottom of the spool will be very slightly challenging to paint in 2D, without any visible stretching or distortion on the model.  Given that the OP is using zBrush, and so will likely paint the texture in 3D, this is probably a non-issue.  However, if 2D painting is preferred, that's what the other two layouts are for.  Read on.

The layout in the middle is mapped pretty much how a cylinder would be mapped by default, with just a little rearrangment of the islands, to best accomodate the inside of the hole, while maintaining maximum canvas usage.  This would absolutely be among the easiest possible maps for 2D texture painting.  It's immediately obvious what goes where, and it leaves very little canvas space unused.

The layout on the right takes utilzies the same cylinder logic, but reduces the amount of islands from four to two.  In SL, this will reduce the download weight (assuming soft normals).  Use of canvas space is maximized by rotating the whole thing by about 45 degrees, although it stil does leave more unused than the middle one.  The biggest single advantage of this layout is that the texel density is almost perectly uniform across the entire model.  There's virtually no stretching, anywhere.  If uniformity is the goal, this one wins by miles.  For 2D painting, some may find it slightly awkward to work at the 45 degree angle at first, but that initial discomfort should go away pretty quickly for just about anybody, once you get into it.  And of course, for 3D painting, it'll be a breeze.

So far, this all assumes that the goal is to use a single material for the whole spool.  If we get into multiple materials, there are some other really easy possibilities.  Here are a couple of examples:

The extra materials allow more flexibility, but of course, they significantly add to the download weight in SL.  So, as always, make decisions intelligently.

 

All of these examples were created in just seconds or minutes, using a program that has excellent built-in UV mapping tools (Maya).  As has been mentioned, zBrush's UV tools are not the greatest.  zBrush isn't designed to be a one-stop-shop for 3D modeling, but rather is meant to be just one part of a larger toolbox.  In a professional development pipeline, the primary modeling and the UV'ing, would be done in something like Maya or Max, and then zBrush (or Miudbox) would be used to add surface detailing and for texture painting.

But of course, as was already mentioned, the average person in SL is not a professional, and is not likely to have access to the likes of Maya or Max, let alone be well versed in multiple applications.  Everyone can afford Blender, of course, and for some, that's a great solution. (In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for most people, it's the best solution avalable, given how much better its interface has gotten over the last year or two.  It used to be a nightmare, but now it's quite good.)  Still, as it's a full featured 3D platform, rather than a specialty program, it remains bigger fish than some people would prefer to tackle.

If you'd rather do all your modeling in zBrush, I'd suggest at the very least you grab yourself a stand-alone UV mapping program.  There are good ones out there to choose from, some of which are free. 

Roadkill UV, for example, isn't a bad place to start, as freebies go.  It's fast, and very easy to use.

[Chosen Few]

---

Rahkis Andel wrote:

the biggest threat to SL's usability right now are people who

don't know what they are doing,

but get a "simple", specialized tool like Zbrush and think they can just use everything they sculpt right out of the (mud)box. With the power to make multimillion poly sculpts, comes the great responsibility of understanding topology and the limits of game engines.

---

QFT!

[Drongle McMahon]

I would go even further with this one. After noting that you can never see more than half the cylindrical parts, or more than one circular end, you see that it is possible to use repeats for these, with a tileable texture so that vthere;s no join on the cylinder. That wat I came up with the following (made entirely in Blender). As far as I can make out, it has exactly the same amount of detail as the original (normally I would use less), although it's about half the number of triangles after eliminating the redundant ones. Its download weight is less than 0.5 at 0.5x0.5x0.6m. The UV mapping is shown in three sections, but these are actually stacked on top of each other, all one material. The picture on the left is inworld with a single 256x256 texture. That's 1/16 the data download and gpu memory of a 1024x1024. Not only is 100% of its area used, but it actually uses most of it four times over.

Of course, there are limitations with this approach. If you want to bake shadows etc. as part of a larger scene, or if you need different labels on each end, you would have to use the kind of thing Chosen shows; the texture wouldn't be reusable, and it would need to be four times the data for the same detail. Another reason for that is that the ends should have a cross-cut grain texture different from the longditudinal one used here. That can be achieved in one material wiuth the unstacked mappings, or with this mapping and a different material.

ETA: Maybe also worth reminding people in this context that increasing the number of UV islands increases the download weight.

ETA: Also, note that the same effects as here can be achieved by using essentially Chosen's second map and setting repeats to 2x2. That way, you can still use the same map with a baked texture. So That's really the better solution.

[Chosen Few]

You're right, of course, Drongle.  Even if repeating some materials, though, I still recommend putting each separate part into its own UV tile space, rather than overlapping them.  It just makes it easier to select things, and to keep everything organized. 

[Codewarrior Congrejo]

To chime in (again) as well;

I don't know if anyone already answered part 2 of your original question. I flicked through the answers but didn't see it.

To fill that "whole" in the middle - there are 2 things to know:

- SecondLife does not have normal re-projection for the back side of a polygon. A visual face will only be displayed on the side to where the normals point. Thus the backside of the face stays invisible.

- In Z-Brush you could achieve this inner Part either by starting the right way and modeling the spool with extruding edgeloops beginning with the inner tube. And eventually using the fill option to close the last / connecting edgeloop.

- Or by making a second tube / cylinder of the correct size, merge it down to your spool, but first flip this part's normals so they would point inwards (Tool>Display Properties>Flip).

Regarding LODs:
With the Z-Sphere Retopology you 'can' create also in Z-Brush your lower LOD's. You just have to ensure to project the mapping etc onto them as well. So even with feeling your model has a low amount of polys, it's lowest LOD should have  max 1/4 of the main model, and in best case even less. 
Also you can create your model with the LOD in mind already. By starting with it's lowest LOD - preserve it, and then  extend / subdivide / extrude from there. To get all 4 LODs. (Just make sure you do the UV unwrapping already on the lowest LOD so it keeps staying the same across all further divisions) - which is the rather default way of doing models.

Just don't forget to make heavy use of the edge-crease when doing shapes like your spool. To keep the rims stable and not being rounded by the further subdivision steps.

 

In general, to support what Nancy and Rahkis already said. Many people misunderstand the place z-brush takes in the creation workflow. We all love it, so don't worry you don't need to defend it. But one has to understand the actual purpose of its use, and its place in the production pipeline. It is a concept tool.

But for Second Life we are leaving the sector of show-off-art, we need to produce models for an existing engine. Thus we have to keep certain things in mind.

When making concept art for models, you don't need much UV control and here UV master is enough to do the trick. You are able to create highly detailed models and texture them this way.

However when we come to terms of 'production' or 'usable models' for games and film: ZBrush takes its place as concept tool and as pre-forming tool but not as source for the final output. Here are the points which create the need of a regular 3D Software aside from ZBrush:

- The obvious: no rigging (Z-Sphere binding can't be used like a real armature or skeleton-  it only serves the purpose of posing your model insides ZBrush), weighting, skinning, animating, no real light systems (matcap is a projectional lighting but no real light envorinment) certain baking types not available etc, etc..

- Working with / or editing pivot points.. we better don't get started on that subject in Zbrush ; )

- ZBrush creates no clean and too dense topology. Edgeflow is not existent nor really controllable (even with their new attempts of edgeflow painting within the Q-Remesher)
Unless you are purely using base-objects like i.e. cylinder in their very plain form - everything aside from that like characters, organic shapes etc produce a topology that is not usable for a game engine nor for animation or rigging.

- When having z-Brush at the 'beginning' of the production pipeline the first word you will learn is 'Re-Topology'.

- Which means what all of us artists do is to retopologize the model by placing the new polygons manually and defining the new model with a clean topology. Created towards the needs for rigging, animation, poly count (and other) limitations given by the target engine.

- The former Z-Brush model is then being used to create displacement maps (computed difference between the highpoly model and the lowpoly / clean topology version) - Something we don't need to consider for SL since it doesn't have displacement maps or vector displacement nor tessellation.

- Also, the UV-Mapping is barely ever done in ZBrush except for the concept model itself. Because you have no control over optimized layouts and to unwrap very complex shapes in ways that would suit the requirements. And even if the polygroups and controlpaintings give a little control, you can't do overlapping, projectional UVs or other things. And ZBrush is not meant to do those - because it is a concept and art tool. 

- Another use is to create the low-poly first (mostly outsides of Z-brush, and with UVs already being made) and then bring it into Z-Brush, pump it up and texturize it / paint it, refine the shape, or again create highresolution details (pores, scratches etc) to make displ. maps from those.

- There is no way around for having other software in the workflow for so much more reasons. And there always has to be made a 'clean' and optimized model in the whole process. No matter if created first or at the end of the workflow by doing retopology. ZBrush's rivals, as well as ZBrush itself have retopology tools inbuilt. (but if you ever fiddled with those, they are rather unhandy. Especially ZBrush's attempt with the Z-Sphere based retopology) And even if doing the retopology there we still have the need to jump into other programs again to finish the process.

- And as Rahkis also already stated, here comes the issue without being aware of the above mentioned points or usual steps to bring out a 'usable' model many hobby artists of course create  unreasonable mesh constructs, which are not only draining the graphic and cpu of other users-  who have to render those, it is also heavy on the SL server side memory and computation.

- It always seems tempting because you can create something great looking in very short time. But 'usability' is a complete different matter. And here you have to know the workflow to bring those concept models into the final output. (And as Nancy already said: it doesn't even need to drain your money. Blender is free and has grown up quite a lot. And many more free programs to do certain steps outsourced, when you don't want to work with a full-blown 3D software and all its menus)

And when making models for a certain engine or platform (like SL in this case) you have responsibility to create something 'usable' and fitting the limitations / requirements. 


That being said, and to repeat - we all love it, you just have to know its place when producing =)

Ok those were my 2 (extended) cents on that matter ^^

[Toysoldier Thor]

All your points that many of you are pointing out many times is well taken and AGAIN... if you are a serious career minded 3D model creator for content that you plan on using outside the bounds of virtual worlds like SECONDLIFE and/or you are creating mesh content that requires rigging within SL, then extending your skillsets to a wide range of 3D modeling tools and placing a large investment in many advanced tools would have great value for the SERIOUS MESH CREATOR.

But I will say it again, with the exception of those the small population of serious professional mesh creators developing content for SecondLife and several other target environments (most of whom are likely the frequent contributors on this forum), I am pretty sure the vast majority of mesh creators for SecondLife content are ameteur hobbyists that will either use Blender (beacuse is zero cost investment) or select ONE 3D modeling tool of choice to create content for SL.  I started with Blender and after a ton of frustration with it and after getting advice from an IBM sculpty creator, I made the decision to evolve to ZBrush as my primary tool of choice for creating the static sculpty / mesh content for SecondLife.

When I first moved to Zbrush in the 4R0 era, I will admit that even Zbrush had a lot of limitations and complexities that frustrated me.  Being very artistic minded and a loving of free form model creation, I really fell in love with voxel modeling tools like Sculptris.  Unfortunately at the time Sculptris was moreso just a fun isolated 3D model sculpting tool with none of the critical exports to make the process of moving it to SL cleanly.  I even experimented with 3DCoat as a Voxel modeling option but it did not have a Collada export to SL either and it cost $ too.

But thankfully Pixelogic bought Sculptris and about a year later in I believe 4R4, they introduced major functional enhancements to Zbrush that not only fully incorporated Sculptris functions but integrated it with Zbrush's other advanced functions.  With 4R5's intro of Panel loops and Qremesher and several other new advanced functions, plus the fact that Zbrush has a direct ZSculpty plugin to SecondLife mesh, I now have all I need in Zbrush to create acceptable low poly count (i.e. low LI costing) models for SecondLife whereby my mesh content is selling well.

Could the UV maps technically more accurate and deemed more clean and efficient, or the decimation / retopologizing of the model be even lower and more cleanly structured in the eyes of an advanced professional 3D model creator?  I AM VERY SURE THEY CAN.  But, do any of my customers that love my mesh art creations care that the UV maps is or is not 100%?  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  I put a lot of focus on trying to create nice shapes with great custom textures and with SL Mesh models that generally stay at the 1 to 5 Land Impact level.

For what mesh content I create for SL, ZBrush (and PhotoShop) are the only two tools I needed to invest in that serves my way of creating mesh / textured art for SL very quickly and intuitively and with more than acceptable results that is BUYABLE to the residents and customers of SL.

Any need for several other 3D modeling tools in my model creation process would simply be a waste of my time and money as they only add advanced functions that do not need.

Conclusion... no one is right or wrong.  You advanced / professional 3D model creators clearly have a need and gain a value add to invest time and money into several tools.  The hobbyist ameteur that I am for mesh creations in SL... I do not need them.  At least so far I have not been frustrated about missing a feature that I wished Zbrush had which could not be solved with a different process / method in Zbrush.

Thanks again for all the valued input to help me solve the UV MAP issue - it was truly valueable advice!