Sub-Surface Mapping and Material? When!?!? It's getting ridiculous!

Sorry for being the jerk here but…have a feeling that you can’t do it.
Are you (McNeel) just managing stuff on top of a library you don’t control???
It’s ridiculous to have a professional “Tool” where the Company owning it can’t manage to implement something so essential.
And certainly trivial to implement for anyone “owning” the software!
Sorry for the rant, but this is a real issue.
Could you please explain why this is not done yet?
And please be respectful, not in “tone” but by actually answering to a valid question.

Subsurface material should already be possible, ctrl shift select surface and assign.

That’s barely usable if you can’t adjust mapping and furthermore you can’t even export it.

How do you know it’s more ‘essential’ and ‘trivial to implement’ than the thousands of other issues and requests on the list?


And please be respectful

It works much better if you start in the manner and tone you would like to receive an answer. Being a jerk (you own words) and then demanding respect is, idk, just not going to cut it.


i dont see anything respect less in your request for clarification. i have no idea what others are complaining about. sadly there a ton of bored fanboys here.

i wonder why your request was not ridiculously flagged long ago OMG. (yes that happens)

are you sure you want to be treated like a small boy each time you are seeking for clarification? patronizing somebodys attitude for not even saying anything wrong is not how i would wish to receive an answer. these are here for a reason. Keeping discourse civilised is one of them.

1 Like

the problem here is that those “guidelines” where already insulted by 2 fanboys being wise and quoting guidelines, if one managed to read these and also understanding its content. i disagree with such behaviour and i dont have a problem being direct about it.

Hello - in among the guidelines, not very hidden, is a request to resist personal attacks and name calling - that is in fact there for a reason, please respect it.

Of course everyone needs the thing they care about right now to be the thing that makes Rhino a ‘professional tool’. It just can’t be, no matter how legitimate any particular request might be - it is a matter of resources and prioritization. With that in mind, by all means keep the pressure on for the tools you feel are important. Though, it would be grand if you could make those requests consist of what it is, exactly, that you would like, without any assumption about what we already know of your workflow, the bottlenecks, or the problems you are trying to solve.


1 Like

I feel your pain I worked on a large project only to find I couldn’t export the applied textures and yes what a pita.

I found I could texture map by doing a dummy object with correct mapping style and orientation then I had to select the polysurface, drill down to the subobject, in this case the face of a polysurface I wanted to planar map with a texture, then choose the match command and pick the dummy object. In the end I found to my dismay I couldn’t export the objects to max using obj format etc and all that time was wasted. But at least I could screen grab and there came another bug that rendered mode would not show some of the textures but luckily cycles did so that saved me to get the docs to the client. Then I came across the pdf printer not printing complete pages argh so many bugs so little time.

I wouldn’t count on this getting done you’re better off exporting and texturing in substance or 3dcoat or a different program that supports material ids and proper uv mapping unwrapping importing and exporting.

1 Like

The there were thousands of issues like it wouldn’t be a professional software.

By the way, is there a “issues” or “wishlist” forum, or something github like to track them?

Although a little bummed by the philosophical essentialism turn I’ll try to keep things really dumb and simple by asking precisely that…

Does Rhino have surface Materials?

Is it important?

Is so how essencial is UV Mapping?

ohh…you can do it but only on single surface but not solids?

Should I be doing all my architectural models with independent surfaces?

Must I stop whining and just do a flawless solid and only then, mesh it (in a fairly low density mesh because solid are great meshing edges) and only then start working on the “meshed walls” Cut-Stone texturing?

I never been able to do anything perfectly the first time so…

Is working with Solids and all it’s specific capabilities overrated?

Should I just forget solid and work only with individual surfaces?

Although a pain, modeling this way gives me full UV mapping control

At any step I can export a highly dense mesh (or one with a lot of light and background coming through the seams) and explore it in a (struggling) realtime render engine.

Regardless of how essencial it is to allow sub-surfaces to keep their uv mapping, how difficult would it be to implement it?

Solid is just a polysurface, collection of surfaces (might have other stuff not relevant to UV mapping)? How would one go about implementing this apparently herculean task? One could start by not throwing away the the surface UV data once in a solid. It that difficult keep UV at subsurface level?

Can the meshing algorithm read that data? Is it non trivial to have it use that subSurface UV data the same way it does when meshing individual surfaces?

It seams all necessary functionality is already there but simply not communicating and throwing important data away.

For decades now users, (it’s not just one) have been addressing this problem and nothing…

So, to reiterate the question in a slightly different way (and to McNeel).

How trivial is it to implement subsurface uv mapping?

If non-trivial could you clarify why?

If the difficulty related not having people to access the necessary subsystems?

If so, what are those? The meshing module? The rhino c++ kernel?

Are there any rhino subsystems where McNeel only has api access?

Is that what makes this seemingly trivial task so daunting?

This is not asking for a new Tool or feature.
It’s asking that you finish the one you started!


PS: If anyone since acknowledged his his comment doesn’t add any insight on the problem please kindly remove it to reducy confusion and clutter. Thanks

1 Like

I guess (intentionally?) missing all the nuances gets you many likes.
You missed “jerk” was used in positive way, the one that makes hard and valid questions.
Also excluding “tone” from respect was really a hint to very specific individuals.
The ones that never ask hard question, bash someone that do and use “tone” as Ad hominem attack, is preachy (yeah, that’s a tone also) about it.
And, in the end he doesn’t even have the decency to answer the question!
I try not to be that kind of “JERK”

Revit 2021 finally allows for slanted/inclined walls!

Yay fr***ing yay…

I would welcome per surface UV mapping.

Yes these are on their you track site

I think that what you want can be done for the most part with uvunwrap and in some cases by using the mapping inside the material (believe it’s called WCS mapping in Rhino, triplanar in Vray.