Jump to content


Photo

Texturing a box


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 kbartlez

kbartlez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 06:50 PM

My apologies in advance for the incredibly N00b question here.

I've been using EI3D to make simple packaging comps for around 10 years now. That I haven't really progressed much in skill level is very lamentable, I know. Hey, at least I'm loyal.

At any rate, what I've pretty much been doing is making IMG of each face, flipping them in Photoshop. Then mapping onto each surface with negative Z turned off. Can't really use the map to polygon feature (I think) because I like putting subtle bevels on my boxes. So I spend a non-zero amount of time adjusting positioning and size.

Is there a better way to do this task? And "it will be much easier in version 9" is a totally acceptable answer for me.

Thanks, as always. I think one of the reasons why I remain loyal is the great support community here. That, and I don't really have the time to learn a new piece of software. Hard enough staying current with updates.

Ken

#2 Tomas Egger

Tomas Egger

    Developer

  • Administrators
  • 1,586 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 08:29 PM

Ola Ken,

You can have some workflows:

First:
1) Do a print screen of your view ports in wireframe mode (Top, Side, Front) of your box.
2) Do a precise match of each texture side in Photoshop, counting with some feather border if you need (to mix better the textures).
3) Add the texture in the Box and choose which Alignment, Front, Back, Top and so on
4) Change the Auto Edit pop-up from None to XY (it will make the texture in the correct proportion)
5) Then you will need only to change the depth of the texture and turn-off the Negative Z.

Second approach:
1) Open your model in a UV unwrap software.
http://www.uvmapper.com/
2) Do a print screen of your UV model wireframe and open in Photoshop
3) Do only one texture opened in Photoshop.
4) Load in EIAS only.

Hope that helps

Thanks

Tom

Tomas Egger

EIAS3D team
tom@eias3d.com


#3 kbartlez

kbartlez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 09:38 PM

Thanks, Tom.

Second approach sounded perfect until I found out there's no new MacOS version. And I don't have ready access to a Windows machine. Wawawaaah. I couldn't find a workable alternative after a quick search.

Guess I'll try the first method. Which seems like a refinement of what I do now.

Ken

#4 Tomas Egger

Tomas Egger

    Developer

  • Administrators
  • 1,586 posts

Posted 23 June 2012 - 12:07 AM

Ola Ken!

You can try SIlo, which does UV unwrap and modeling and its cheap :)

http://www.nevercenter.com/silo/

Thanks

Tom

Tomas Egger

EIAS3D team
tom@eias3d.com


#5 yhloon

yhloon

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 43 posts

Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:53 AM

daz3d still offering their hexagon for free at the moment, limited time offer, try the Mac version...
http://www.daz3d.com...hat-is-hexagon/

hexagon is not that user friendly compare to silo, and not that stable as well, but it have a very nice UV and painting tools, where you can paint your model in (near)realtime

#6 kbitz

kbitz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:38 PM

Hi Ken
Please let me know your results with method 1.
My textures project thru to the other side with Neg Z off.
thanks
KB

#7 kbartlez

kbartlez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:47 PM

KB,

For the most part, Method 1 works just fine. Although, oddly, I remember having to always horizontally flip the texture, map it to the opposing side, and move it forward. I don't need to actually do the taking screenshots part since my texture file is basically the print mechanical for the box itself and so dimensionally it matches my model.

I was just hoping from something more magical like Method 2 where I wouldn't have to keep prepping and aligning all these textures. And since my source is an actually Photoshop file, something like Hexagon, where you do direct painting isn't an option either.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users