Question on milkshape and skinning

#1 There is a difference in using an 'image' as a 'background' to model from and the 'material' applied to it, in the form of a bitmap file, to give it 'texture' once inside the engine.

'Unwrapping' is the process of taking the UV coordinates of the mesh object[not the mesh itself], and 'mapping' these points to the material bitmap that gives your geometry 'life' inside the engine. At this point, the 'background' image...is no longer needed or used; unless it also is the 'material' bitmap for rendering inside the engine. You definitely want to 'unwrap' or UV 'map' your mesh[s], as this process fits the mesh UV coordinates to the texture surface and allows for the opportunity to adjust the visual appearance of the mapping, to correct any 'smears' or 'tears'/ragged edges on the geometry in the Scene and eventual export to the engine.

The disadvantages of doing the mapping in Milkshape is it's mapping schema, it's improved a lot, but the default unwrappings are somewhat limited. Another 'uv mapping' program/3rd party may indeed give you better default unwrappings, but it's still up to you to adjust your UV coordinates to make your Scene mesh 'look' good. I, myself, do not use ms3d's TCE to do any UV work, I use 3rd party tools.....and did a quickie video on using an Import feature of just bringing in UV coordinates of the same mesh from the 3rd party UV tool.

youTube

#2 Hi Rex and thanks for the response. I'm still a little confused so let me rephrase my question -

Let's say I make a box in milkshape, take a plain old texture and apply it as a material. What am I not getting in that procedure that I would get from a uvunwrap? Does a uvunwrap enable more details for more complex shapes, or having multiple skins for the same object?

#3 What you get by 'unwrapping' the faces...by various algorithms the authors write, is better texture coverage on the faces you map to..... If you just slap a 'material' to a 'box' or 'cube'...you're getting Mete's default projections for the mapping...but these are for automatic primitives, not any sort of 'custom' generated meshes/faces. Those get a 'default' mapping of 0,0, and all the faces are collapsed into a single vertex/point/UV coordinate. This is not going to look right back in the ms3d UI....but a 'auto' primitive already has some 'default' UV mapping done to it...which is why the texture looks 'correct' when applied...

Try making a cube face by face...then apply the same material to this box/cube...you will not like your 'default' UV mapping...unwrapping, period; I guarantee it. You then have to select faces/groups...and give them a 'projection/mapping'....then the faces are spread out to accept the bitmap....

Find some research material for reading about this topic, it is a very basic entry level 3D concept, if you're happy with ms3d's projections and mappings...go for it! I am not....lol. UV mapping does not give you 'multiple' skins....some 3rd party programs allow a set of faces to receive two separate mappings....this is probably what you are referring to...MS3d does NOT do this natively...give you two UV 'sets'....UV mapping is not for 'more complex shapes'...it's for ANY primitives....you need to render in the engine...to have a 'texture' applied to it, so it looks visually 'correct'...not smeared or stretched....

#4 Thanks Rex! That *really* clears it up for me, now I understand the differences. Yep, more research is in order.

#5 @Rex How can I get those pluggins for Milkshape? Great video. Thanks

Robert

#6 @Rex Can I bring in the ORC Seleton and Animation into my MS project?

Thanks

Robert