Hi.
Why are textures displayed in such distorted way ? This is planar mapping. with surface mapping it looks ok
Hi Ivan,
Can you post an example 3dm file. That will make it much easier for others to give feedback.
I might be wrong but could this field be very far from the document origin location? If locating it close to the origin does that change the texture?
What does the input image look like?
-Willem
it is definetely far from origin because i work in real site coordinates 
vs at 00
damnit why cant there be fake zero which you could put anywhere close your site in the real coordinates and all other coordinates would be subtracted by fake origin so these problems would not longer exist
I’m guessing that it’s mostly because such a scheme would impose the need to recalculate all coordinates at every change in the model or the display of it - slowing Rhino down considerably even with today’s hardware.
if it is true then it is valid argument against this kind of solution. but i hoped that simple subtraction matrix could be solved in no time but i am no computer scientists or programmer. i just see this far from origin is huge problem especially for aec. some programs deal with this with fake zero (revit, tekla). others try to handle big coordinates without faking it (bentley). rhino could resolve this kind of probems in v7 nurbs geometry is handling big coordinates Ok problem is usually with display performance