Bug? unpack textures & channel 0 : Rhino4 vs. Rhino5



I am a bit baffled by how Rhino5 deals with unpacked textures of polysurfaces and imported UVs in contrast to Rhino 4. Right now I can’t use the same workflow in V5, in fact it seems this special functionality got missing or is buggy.

I’ll try to give an exact explaination of what I mean.the geometry is exemplary.

this is the substructure of the polysurface i am dealing with.
Note the un-shrunk surface tiles.
this is the image i am trying to achieve, equally relaxed UVs
to do so, after joining the surfaces, i have to unpack texture coordinates, so it doesn’t look like this
fine: i get this in V5 after unchecking and "refreshshade"
but when I go into texture properties, there are no controls. I wonder why?
to access texture parameter i have to add surface mapping, and this breaks things:
not right after applying the surface mapping, but as soon as I tweak any parameter all UVs behave as if all surfaces were shrunk. In fact the old UVs seem to be permanently destroyed at that point if one would do that with eg. an imported OBJ.
On a polysurface, deleting the newly created channel and “refreshshade” bring back correct appearance. Is this a bug? it does not make sense to me, that Uvs are shrunk despite unpacking is enabled!

But i wonder generally, why is there no way to access imported mesh UV channel 0 texture parameters, or the channel 0 Uvs on a polysurface, in Rhino 4 it was possible to do this:


is it possible to bring back this behaviour? it would really help with texturing work.
Also imported UV channels are very fragile right now, breaking permanently if the wrong action is performed on them.

thanks for taking a look,


Original texture placement required!
Accessing surface texture UV tiling and offset values
(Brian James) #2

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the time in putting this detailed report together. Can you also post the 3dm and associated texture map for me? I will try and mock up the same as shown but it would make it easier to ensure I don’t create something slightly different.

I believe the main issue is that you need the default surface UV parameter controls without assigning surface mapping to make them appear.


Yes, please add it again. From time to time I miss it too, the default packed textures are good looking, but only a little repeat option refinement is needed.

(Brian James) #4

I think I have the exact set up reproduced here and believe that at least this portion is indeed a bug and one that I’ve spoken with our developers about recently. I am hoping we can fix this in a service release but more research needs to be done first. This is filed as RH-19195, this report is not public at this time. Still send your file if you can but I wanted to let you know I think we have part of your comments on our list already.

The other issue of not having the default surface or imported UV parameters available is a second bug in my opinion. I’ve filed this as RH-21199, this report is not public at this time.

Thanks again for your feedback.


Hi Brian,

that is good news.
thanks for looking into this an clarifying that it’s on the list!

i sent you a link to a copy of the file i was working with on my machine.



(Brian James) #6

Thanks, I attached the file to this bug for our developers.