Aquila Kytori
-
Posts
1,218 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Aquila Kytori
-
-
24 minutes ago, IvyTechEngineer said:
Maybe it is because the model is just a shell? Do I need to build the another model that flips the normals and texture the inside walls?
Yep That's exactly what you need to do.
As the inside cave walls will not match exactly the outside mountain/island walls you will have to have a physics model also for the cave.
-
17 minutes ago, IvyTechEngineer said:
don't see the Developer selection in my SL Viewer or in FireStorm?
Enable in preferences.
SL viewer :
Firestorm :
-
8 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:
I also think the physics mode is just set to convex hull,
I visited the Ivy Tech sim, found the mesh island and checked the Physics............ Wulfie is correct, the island is set to use the default Convex Hull type physics.
I think it has been mentioned before in one of your previous threads but I will mention it again, if you enable the Developer > Render Metadata > Physics Shapes option you can see the collision surfaces of all the objects in the scene. For your Island see the screenshot below :
I noticed from a previous screenshot of yours that you don't have the Developer menu active. You will find the option to enable it at the bottom of the Advanced menu :
To walk correctly on the surface and pass through the cave opening of the Island you will need to change the Physics shape Type from the default Convex hull to the Prim option. This option is found in the Build floater when editing the island in-world. Build floater > Features tab > Physics Shape Type drop-down menu :
If you don't see the Prim option it means you didn't specify a physics model to use when uploading the Island.
Just a note, The Firestorm viewer is very popular because of its many "extras", one of which is the ability to quickly see the collision shape of the selected object :
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, aht1981 said:
I can share the files or log if somebody wants!
Sharing the file is almost always the quickest way to getting a solution to your mesh problems.
If you post a link here then I am sure one of us will have a look at it and if necessary do a test upload for you.
-
For arton, just in case you ever want to get back to Blender one day
Backface Culling is now enabled in the Viewport Shading drop-down :
Blender also has a useful option which makes finding incorrectly orientated faces easier. When enabled, faces with their normals facing outwards are coloured blue and faces with their normals facing inwards are coloured red. ( Just as Thecla was illustrating in the very first screenshot of this thread). This Face Orientation option can be found in the Viewport Overlays drop-down :
-
1
-
-
The screenshots you linked to appear to show two different versions of the ashtray? :
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Marianne Little said:
Somewhere in the process the UV map turned so dark, when I go to UV-export UV layout, it is almost solid black. How do I get the dark color off?
Looks like you have it sorted now
The UV map area turned black because somewhere along the line you created a new image texture with a black background called "uv frame box" and have it loaded up as your image texture in the UV space. This will have no effect the UV map when exporting the UV layout. When exporting, the UV layout it will be saved as black edges on a transparent background, ready to be used as a guide to creating a texture in your 2D image editor (Gimp, PS, Paint.net etc ).
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:
I had looked at books that came out in 2020. I thought since they were for Blender 2.8 something and we are now on version 3 something, it is not so much changes. It sounds like I was wrong there.
No you weren't wrong, there are not huge changes between 2.8 and 3.4 . So what you learn from from a book published in 2020 is still very relevant. Also, if need be, you can have multiple versions of Blender on your computer. Just download the corresponding version of Blender. https://download.blender.org/release/ I have 4 versions available on my taskbar.
1 hour ago, Marianne Little said:but when I come to unwrapping and getting the UV, something shut up in my brain.
If I remember correctly Blender for Dummies didn't offer alot of examples when it comes to how to go about unwrapping an object. It just explained a little about the UV options and a step by step on how to UV unwrap (and paint) an eye object.
The important thing is what Optimo said :
11 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:but one thing is sure: learn the basics of the software, even if not relevant to the niche you're aiming to. You'll adapt the concepts later on.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I to had Blender for Dummies by Jason Van Gumster. The edition I had was for Blender 2.5. It got lost somewhere but before that I had about every page for the first half of the book marked yellow with marker pen. I remember it was beginning to fall apart from all the use I got out of it. I loved it
.
Unfortunately the latest edition, fourth edition, came out over 3 years ago, January 2020, and was for Blender 2.80. The next edition is planned for December 2023
Would I recommend the edition for 2.80 for you now when you will be using Blender 3.4 ? ............. I just opened Blender 2.83 to have a quick check on how it looks compared to 3.41......................... If you have €30 burning a hole in your pocket then yes I probably would . ( + another 2 euros for a marker pen and a note book
).
-
16 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:
After all that work when I tried to upload I get the error message that I have "triangles that are too small"! dang it : ) Looks like I have more work to do ...
In the mesh uploader's preview window you will find that the "triangles that are too small" are indicated by thick black edges and vertices in the SL viewer and by red edges and vertices when using the Firestorm viewer. You may have to zoom in on the objects in the preview window to see them.
Then you have to go back to Blender, search the area of the physics model indicated in the mesh uploader's preview window and get rid of them.
In the example below there are a couple of vertices at the cut-out for the tunnel that are causing there to be very narrow triangles when the physics model is triangulated.
When using the SL viewer :
Firestorm viewer :
Back in Blender, checking the areas indicated in the Preview window for the problematic triangles that are causing the errors :
When you think you have corrected the Physics model re-export and try uploading again. If you have no more errors then you're done, if not its back to Blender and more searching.
Note: There are two types of model that we can create in Blender to use as our Physics model :
- Planes (triangle) type physics model.
- Box (hull) type physics model.
Planes type is when we construct our physics model using quads and triangles (planes) as you are doing now with the physics model for your building.
Box type is when we construct our collision model using "box" shapes. See below for an example of a Box type physics model for one of your circular rooms.
In the Mesh uploader > Physics tab, when using a Planes type physics model we don't touch anything in Step 2 or Step 3 , the mesh uploader leaves our physics model just as we created it. That is a mesh constructed of Triangles. Our collision surfaces will be Triangles.
When we give the mesh uploader a Box type physics model to use for collisions we need to ask the uploader to Analyze it in Step 2 of the Physics tab. The uploader is then tasked to convert the model we gave it into a collection of Hulls ("boxes") We left a little space between each of our boxes when constructing our physics mesh in Blender so that the uploader can more easily create ""hulls" where we want them to be. When Analyzed the collision surfaces will be a collection of Hulls.
But don't worry about the Box type, for buildings its usually best to do as you have been doing, using the Planes type physics. And all you need to remember is when using the Planes type Physics DON'T touch anything in Step 2 or Step 3 of the Physics tab of the mesh uploader.
A quick recap of the 3 rules that should be followed when creating a physics mesh.
- Each visual model (object) has to have its own physics model.
- The Bounding Box (BB) X, Y and Z dimensions of the physics model should match the BB dimensions of the visual model.
- Keep the physics model as simple as possible.
Your physics model is falling foul of rule N° 3, The mesh uploader doesn't like to find very small, very thin or degenerate triangles in the physics mesh.
The "very small, very thin" are relative to the size of the model. What is classed as a 'too small' triangle in a large mesh would not necessarily be a problem in a smaller physics model.
A Degenerate triangle is a triangle with zero area. Two (or 3) of its vertices are occupying the same point in the 3D space.
On 2/20/2023 at 9:13 PM, IvyTechEngineer said:OBWT - pasteall.org has retired, any good options to share Blender files?
For short term file sharing you could use Litterbox. https://litterbox.catbox.moe/
Just make sure that you set it to use the 1 or 3 day option.
-
2
-
17 hours ago, animats said:
It's a COLLADA thing. There's no explicit object order in COLLADA export,
Isn't that what the Sort by Object name option in Blenders Collada exporter is for ?
6 Objects to be exported:
17 hours ago, animats said:so the uploader has to do something arbitrary.
Or have it fixed so that it can read and use the order of objects it finds in the .dae file. ?
17 hours ago, animats said:I once suggested sorting by name, but people who who upload everything as "Object" would still get randomness.
The people who "upload everything as "Object" " obviously don't care what order the objects are dealt with.
-
4 hours ago, ChinRey said:
I didn't take into account that Fs at least (don't know about the LL viewer) offer several alternative decimation algorithms now. I do not know what they are but it seems they are just alternative ways to sue GLOD rather than completely different algorithms.
GLOD replaced by MeshOptimizer (one word).
From Inara Pey's Living in a modern world, https://modemworld.me/2022/09/09/firestorm-6-6-3-performance-improvements/#lab
" The Performance Improvements viewer also includes the MeshOptimizer Project .
- By default, this replaces obsolete GLOD’s mesh simplification in the mesh uploader with the newer and more powerful MeshOptimizer package to provide better level of detail (LOD) modelling during the upload process.
- Note that as an option, Firestorm also retains the GLOD capability – see below for more. "
The Glod option is the one named Reliable.
-
1
-
2 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:
A rigged mesh doesn't bring its textures automatically during upload, it's a long standing bug that was never fixed. One can try all combinations of options during export, and although the texture files can be correctly referenced, the uploaded won't take them. At all. Never, no matter what.
I'd be glad to be proven wrong though, but it never worked and so I quit trying long time ago.
Thanks for the correction Optimo,
-
1
-
-
On 11/23/2022 at 12:14 AM, Ags Falconer said:
1. When exporting the blender mesh to a Collada format, I don't believe blender actually bundles the texture image into the same *.dae file. Rather it includes the image file as a reference in the Collada file. So, you still have to upload the texture image into SecondLife and edit the avatar object to add the texture to it. Then, it seems to work fine. Picture of the result below. (If someone knows I am wrong on this, please set me straight!)
Edited to add: See @OptimoMaximo 's reply below. "A rigged mesh doesn't bring its textures automatically during upload, it's a long standing bug that was never fixed. One can try all combinations of options during export, and although the texture files can be correctly referenced, the uploaded won't take them. At all. Never, no matter what."
So unfortunately it isn't going to work for your monkey.
Below this only applies for Static mesh models :
To upload the the texture image along with the model you need to check the Include textures option in the mesh uploader.
Mesh Uploader > Upload Options > Include textures. see images below.
I had always thought that it was necessary, when exporting to Collada , to have the Textures Options > Copy ("Copy textures to same folder where the .dae file is exported.") option enabled so that when opening in the Mesh uploader, the uploader could look in the same folder containing the model.dae and find the texture image that is referenced in the Collada file.
But apparently that is not necessary ?
Uploading a cube with a grid image texture assigned to it :
As an experiment I painted on the grid image texture in Blender and repeated the export. Note that the modified image texture was not saved before exporting the Cube :
Looking inside the Collada file of the of the first Cube it seems to indicate that the image texture is to be searched for from its original location on my hard drive :
but with the modified image texture it seems to be referencing the Blender file ? :
And with the Texture Options > Copy option checked it is again referencing the Blender file ?
Deleting the resultant Image texture .jpg from the folder containing the Cube.dae still results in a succesfull upload of cube + image texture !
Any ways , that was just me doing some experimenting ................. As a general rule, enable Texture Options > Copy, when you want to have your textures exported along with the model.
I can't think of any advantage of uploading the image texture along with the model and as Quarrel has already mentioned the best is, while still testing and modifying your image texture, to upload your image texture using the Local Textures option so that every time you modify your texture and "save" it in Gimp or PS or while Painting inside off Blender, you can instantly see the changes on your rezzed model inworld without having to continually re-upload it after every modification.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:
Assuming that the OP intends to use Zbrush to add additional detail to the model (which is one of the most common uses for Zbrush) increasing the density of the topology is exactly what they'll need to do.
The idea behind the workflow is to create a low poly model, import it into Zbrush and increase the polygon density in order to sculpt additional details onto it. Once you've finished adding details you export the high poly version and then bake the detail into normal maps, AO maps, etc. which can be applied to the low poly model
Yes, you are right. @DulceDiva should be using Zbrush like this.
-
20 hours ago, DulceDiva said:
My model looks nice and smooth in Blender. When exporting to Zbrush,it looks faceted.
I should just mention first that I don't use Zbrush. I had to use Google
Zbrush doesn't do Smooth Shading. A smooth look in Zbrush is achieved by increasing the topology which is probably not what you want or a good idea for a model that will be used in a real time renderer like SL.
Here is a 5 year old video explaining this :
and here is a link to an add-on that perhaps makes it possible to enable smooth Shading in Zbrush ? (Like I said earlier no guarantees, I don't use Zbrush) :
https://mad-pony-interactive.gumroad.com/l/PMkGb so perhaps you can ?
20 hours ago, DulceDiva said:When importing back into Blender again, it still looks faceted, just like it does in Zbrush
To enable Smooth Shading in Blender its :
Object mode > Select Model > Object > Shade Smooth > open the Object Data Properties tab > Normals > enable Auto Smooth and then, if necessary play with the Auto Smooth Angle value.
If you are using Blender 3.3 or above, then instead of opening the Object Data Properties tab you will find that after Object mode > Select Model > Object > Shade Smooth >
an Auto Smooth pop-up menu at the bottom left hand corner of the 3D viewport and from there you can change the angle value.
Smooth Shading /Auto Smooth can also be enabled in Edit mode and applied to the selected faces.
Edit mode > select geometry to be smoothed > Face > Shade Smooth > Object Data Properties tab > Normals > enable Auto Smooth.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, coelamelon said:
Too many skinned joints" problem. Been trying to find a solution but no luck.
My console log shows this: LOD3 Skinning disabled due to too many joints: 161, maximum: 110
LOD3 Model Top loadedJust a guess until someone who knows more about these things comes along ..................
Have you tried Limit Total Vertex Groups or Clean Vertex Group Weights ?
link to Blender manual https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/scene_layout/object/editing/cleanup.html
and save your work before trying these
-
Unfortunately Razor this model of a sword is not designed to be used for real time rendering in any game engine, let alone SL. When modifiers have been applied it gives a triangle count of 2,406,144.
For Second Life (or any other game) you would need to create a much lower poly version of the Blade, Handle and Scabbard, say 10,000 (or less
) triangles for all 3 objects and then bake out a High to low poly normal map to reproduce all the finer details. Probably using a cage.
-
2
-
-
You're welcome.
-
4 hours ago, Snodge Snoodle said:
LOD "baked" into one collada file?
Not one .dae file but one .dae for each level of detail and one for the Physics models. When uploading you point the uploader to the .dae file containing one or more High LoD models then the uploader searches the folder containing the High LoD .dae for the other lower Lod and Physics .dae s and loads them up automatically for you.
In the example below there are 4 High Lod models to be uploaded together along with their lower LoD and Physics models.
Thats 5 .daes each containing 4 models. :
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:
Actually it IS there at the bottom.
ooops yes. I was looking only where I was expecting to see it, saw an empty space and decided it wasn't there .
And we can only give suggestions, sometimes even suggestions that were not asked for, you are not obliged to follow any of them lol.
.............. And ty, I will check out Artscape this weekend. Its been a long time since I wandered around SL just for the fun of it.
-
39 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:
I have LOTS more hulls than you. I have tried it the more streamlined way but I have never been happy with how the physics works. Too "mushy" for my tastes.
if you are still refering to Analyzed physics ...........
take a look at the three pillars on the right compared to the three pillars on the left. Each pillar on the left is a single colour indicating each is a single hull. Now the three on the right, each pillar is shaded with at least three different colours ! Why would that be? They need to be checked in Blender.
So to start with, in Blender check your pillars and also make each section of wall between pillars clearly separate boxes.
Your physics model in the Physics panel is indicating 166 vertices mine 104. Why such a big difference ? Again needs to be looked at in blender.
-
Go back to the Firstorm for SL viewer and in the Physics panel of the uploader check the number of hulls after hitting the Analyze button.
In the Firstorm view you have that little slider which can be used to "explode" (separate) each physics hull as seen in the anim. gif I posted earlier.
Remember each colour in the physics preview indicates a separate hull. In your preview panel there are way to many different colours (Hulls) !
There is a reason for this and its the reason why your Physics cost is so high.
You see in my anim.gif of a very similar model to yours that there are only 13 Hulls. Yours is showing 35 !
Also the LL viewer does not indicate the real Physics cost of the the model when it is set to Physics Shape type Prim. The Firstorm viewer does.
Calculation of Physics cost before upload was 13 x 0.36 = 4.68 and the Firstorm viewer indicates ............. 4.68
Note also I didn't take a chance on the SL Physics analyzer getting it right. Take a look in the preview window of the gif and see how each section of wall between the pillars are separate hulls. Separate hulls in Blender before exporting. (with a little space between each of them which helps the Analyzer to see that I wanted them to be counted as separate hulls).
The rule is don't give the Analyzer the option to create hulls where you don't want there to be any. Your mesh YOU decide. lol
-
4 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:
Honestly I am OK with the 8 land impact as the physics are perfect and I am still using analyzed physics LOL.
The reason I thought that you were using Planes type, not Analysed physics is because in your image we can see the triangles that make up the collision surfaces. I maybe wrong but before, for Analysed physics you couldn't see those when in Physics view?
Now, using Firestorm, there is very little difference to distinguish between the two types of Physics.
In the screenshot below I think the difference in blue colour is only due to the difference in Physics costs :
For analysed Physics the Physics cost is the number of Hulls multiplied by 0.36. So the physics cost should be known in advance. If it is different from what you expected then you have a reason to complain lol .
Recap for anyone new to SL mesh that may be reading this, 13 Hulls x 0.36 = 4.68 :
-
1
-
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Blender>SL: Second UV map not importing correctly?
in Mesh
Posted · Edited by Aquila Kytori
Yes only 1 UV map per object.
But as you now know you can have up to 8 material layers on the one UV space. In your example you want to use 2 material layers, 1 material per "layer". Table Top material on 1 "layer and the Legs on a second layer.
Select all the geometry using the Table_Top material and UV unwrap and arrange the islands in the UV space.
Repeat for all the geometry using the Legs material.
As you have already said, when everything is selected the UV space looks a mess but Bake by material in Blender and then inworld when you "Select by Face" only the UV's of that material layer will be used for that particular material/texture.
Optimo has already explained why you should avoid using the full 8 x 1024² on small objects.
For your table example you could use a 1024² texture for the table top (and sides) and a much smaller, 256² texture for the legs.
Of course ideally you would be trying to use only 1 UV layer, both the table top and legs unwrapped to the same UV layer so that you would only be creating/baking/uploading/and applying one single texture to the table.