Unwrap should also be a modifier
It would be very helpful in a lot of cases if UV unwrap was a modifier. This modifier should not replace the current UV workflow.
Currently UV project can currently be used but anything other than a single planar projection is hard to setup. (Planar requires 1 object to be created and assigned where to mimic cube unwrapping it requires 6)
The modifier should at very least contain "planar" "cube" "cylinder" and "sphere" projection. "lightmap" and "smart" would be nice too but I assume would be a lot slower.
It would also go a long way to help solve the obtuse workflow for cylinder mapping objects.
6 Comments
Yes, Best solution is to have unwrap ALSO as modifier, for "rewriting" existing object uv. (Possibility to try different uv without worry of losing original uv).
I disagree, it absolutely should replace the current workflow and there is no reason why UV Mapping couldn't be entirely contained inside a modifier. Lack of non-destructive UV Unwrapping is one of biggest disappointments for me in blender at the moment.
Meanwhile in contrast 3DS Max has UV Unwrap modifier you just plop up that lets you create custom unwrap based on the prior stack, and Houdini has pretty strong node based unwrapping too (iirc)
Caveat here is that I have the feeling the lack of UV unwrap modifier might not just be design overlook but rather one of the multiple shortcomings of the whole modifier stack design :/
* @3rton93 * UV mapping exists as data on verticies, if you put UV mapping on a modifier you must also put weight maps and vertex colours accessible only via a modifier. It would mean that if you import a model with UV mapping they must have a UV modifier applied by default and if you want to collapse the stack you have to remember not to collapse the UV mapping. None of that sounds good to me.
By all means add functionality to unwrap based on the prior stack but this does not mean we have to replace the current workflow of being able to UV with no modifiers applied.
My gut feeling like adding that functionality is a big deal and not required for a basic UV unwrap modifier to be very useful.
* @Frankie Hobbins * but u free not to use this modifier, if your workflow don't need it) we talking not about replacement but bout adding..
* @impacman * I agree with you that we should have both, but not 3rton93 who says he wants to replace current workflow with a modifier, my reasons listed in above post.
* @Frankie Hobbins * What impacman said. You don't really need the change the current none modifier approach at all (Because that would still be needed because you have to store the UV mapping somehow when you you collapse the modifier) But adding the option to store the mapping in modifier (and specifically to be able to edit the mapping based on the modifiers position in the stack) would be immensely powerful.