texture mapping in Meshes: flat mapping please!

[Luis M Dias]

The mesh is a really good tool for landscape, but if we want to use it with satellite / aereal photos in order to create a relatively nice aligned (and editable) landscape context, anytime the slope goes beyond 45 degrees, the mapping stops behaving in a way that is required.

I understand why this happens, as far as I know the mesh UV coordinates uses a box mapping. I understand why this was the choice to go for, but it renders these types of landscapes completely useless and a mess to deal with. We require a flat mapping option, so that even in 89 degree slopes, we get its textures from satellite photos correctly.

We just want a simple button with the option "Flat mapping coordinates". That's it. A very simple thing. Please, Graphisoft. It cannot be complicated.

what a terrible sight, what terrible mapping

[stanrostas]

We have modeled some mountains and project on the content. Does the fidelity of the Mesh help even with extreme slopes? Getting our Sketchup users to transition to AC has been challenge due to this one feature in SU that they use all the time.

[Luis M Dias]

No, it doesn't, because it does not depend on the fidelity of the modelling. The image above is extremely low-fi but it is representative of what happens whenever the slope goes beyond 45 degrees or 100%. It has to do with the mapping, which is cubic. Once any face of the mesh is facing more the sides of the "cube" than its top, the mapping switches to the side maps. Thus, however you want to start detailing, it will always give this type of result.

I'm asking to have the option of "flat mapping". Imagine that the material is projected from the top, and only the top. This has the negative result of very stretched out textures when the slopes are almost vertical, but it has this amazing quality of being actually correct from an ortophotomap point of view, which is very important for us.

[Decumanus]

this is quite serious ... Why it is not flat projected? Are You fans of "Inception"? or something?

R

[Luis M Dias]

As I said before, I understand *why* it is like it is. It was designed this way without satelite imagery in mind, but rather with every kind of terrain materials in mind. If you just use materials (rock, grass, sand, whatever), you do not want them to behave incorrectly at very high slopes.

Problem is, it's not good for this particular case, which is extremely common in architecture and urbanist practice!