EDIT: Although it would feel more tidy if FilletEdge produced a UV aligned fillet when both input UVs are aligned, this has been transformed into a wish for the anisotropy option of a PBR material to have texture mapping channel option.
ORIGINAL:
When both input surfaces have aligned UVs, fillet edge produces a surface that opposes both inputs.
(In this video the green isocurves represent the U direction)
FilletEdgeUVs.3dm (96.2 KB)
Hi Thomas - I don’t think the tool pays any attention to this. As far as I can see fillet Us like to be in the edge direction regardless.
-Pascal
@pascal It’s the same with v5 … so it’s been like this for a while. Is there a specific reason why it doesn’t pay attention to the UVs ? Is it something that can improve ?
Possibly most people missed it, because it’s inconsequential a lot of the time ? or they don’t use unique UV display color to notice ?.. but if you apply a render material to it with anisotropy enabled then all corners look wonky and you have to go into the model to either fix all these fillets or start applying manual UVs in bunch of places.
Besides that, it also looks a little sloppy.
Hi Thomas - off hand I doubt that it can be ‘fixed’; it simply is not considered and never has been. In any case, it would only be non-sloppy in a minimum set of cases.
-Pascal
@pascal Now that Rhino has Cycles, applying a metal, creates discontinuities in all fillet locations (BlendSrf locations too)
Hi Thomas - for that type of material, set the texture to use OCS or OCS Box type. Then you can set the actual direction with ApplyOCSMapping.
-Pascal
@pascal We don’t texture every single piece of a model in a large scene. Having to worry about fillets creates an extra logistical problem.
An OCS Box style texture, for the material you showed, should just work, I think.
-Pascal
@pascal There is NO texture. We don’t want to texture every nook and cranny of a model. A lot of objects in a scene, especially bare metal are just a metal material with some anisotropy.
Hm… can you post or send me that material, the one in your image above? Ah… it must be the Anisotropy…
-Pascal
@pascal
Physically Based.rmtl (25.6 KB)
Ah… it must be the Anisotropy
That was mentioned early on (first reply).
Yes, indeed, sorry, I missed that bit.
Here, anisotropy looks better if I apply box mapping to the objects. This can be done to multiple objects in one go.
-Pascal
… Unless it’s cheaper for the anisotropy in Cycles to have a WCS option next to it (without having to apply a texture) ? Essentially, anisotropy is a form of a texture, since it gives the semblance of toolmark direction.
hmm, never mind, even if we did apply textures, I notice the box WCS option just shifts the problem, now the discontinuity is at the middle of the fillet.
Although keep in mind that different mapping can be used in different channels as well.
-Pascal
hmm (thinking out loud) … even if FilletEdge paid attention to the UVs at position 1 (rule: obey the UVs when both inputs are consistent), then a fillet at the top would be OK at position 2, but have a problem at position 3 … unless there is a complex set of rules.
Anisotropy creates a set of problems. We can’t use it willy-nilly.
ok, then it makes more sense to have the anisotropy setting follow a mapping channel? Is that possible to shift it to a wish ?
Right, matching up UVs is only going to help, at best, in a very few cases. I do not know how anisotropy is mapped, but @nathanletwory will have a much better idea than I do…
Nathan, Thomas is running into problems where either seams between surfaces or edges of the box mapping show up in anisotropy in PBRs… I guess there is not a way around that currently, but you know best…?
-Pascal
