0

Why is this happening, how can I wrap the image correctly around the corner?

enter image description here

1

Adobe Dimension is a quick and easy 3D toolset, which doesn't really encourage looking under the hood a lot - but from my other 3D experience, I'd say it doesn't allow images to span UV islands, and the areas your're spanning are on differing UV islands.

If you're stuck in this toolset, the answer is a simple one: place create multiple versions of your decal image - one to each island, then maneuver them to overlap correctly.

Alternately, you could make two versions of the decal, one for each area, and manually align them when placing.

Or you could look at other 3D tools - any decent 3D DCC (Digital Content Creation) tool can do what you need and give you control over the UVs and decal placement - but there will be a learning curve and/or a cost to each.

Blender is free and quite powerful (with admittedly a somewhat idiosyncratic workflow) and is a great place to start out these days as the newer UI (as of v2.8) is pretty clean and effective.

Modo is my 3D DCC tool-of-choice - I'll look to see if I can export out geometry from Dimensions as .fbx with UVs and examine those in Modo and test to see if I am correct in my supposition.

Blender
Modo
Cinema 4D
Maya
3DS
Lightwave

I was able to get a little time to experiment - what I found with two of the Adobe-provided startup assets was that the UVing varies, and that some is clearly done using an automated unwrap, and then the procedure amalgamates all the UVs into one master UV map for the whole scene... and doesn't use UDims to separate different UV tiles.

This is a bit... messy... and the point at which what should be appropriately connected UVs are, versus are not, either convergent or connected is pretty much on a model-by-model basis, as far as I can tell.

Here I've pulled the basic box into Modo, and as you can see, the UVs are quite nice, organised well, clear, connectivity is decent, and texel density is appropriately maintained across surfaces. enter image description here

In this model which has a bag, some tissue in the bag, and a cube box also, the UV's have consistent texel density, but are messily aggregated, and have some strange connectivity - clearly either an automated UV or a less skilled 3D generalist creating the asset: enter image description here

There is one set of corners with nice connectivity in the UVs, and thus, as one would expect, the applied graphics slide the corner in Dimensions nicely. enter image description here

So the best bet for consistent UVs is pulling in your own 3D models, that you know are properly UV'd - but that then for me begs the question - if you can create and correctly UV such a model, what would be the use-case for Dimensions? In fact, of course, Dimensions is aimed at Graphic Designers with little to no general 3D experience or skill, and for them it's exactly on-point - gives 'em enough power to get moving with, but not enough detail to be overwhelming.

TL;DR - case-by-case, model-by-model, some will allow corner-wrapping better than others, and you'll just have to test. Where it's not working as you need, use the workarounds I've already described.

Hope that helps.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Hey, thanks for the answer. I modeled that box myself in blender and indeed the issue was the UV-Map was all messed up. I didn't even know UV is a thing. I fixed it, looks awesome now. Blender is still really hard to get used to! Thanks a lot for the right nudge into the right direction :) – Dimitri Mar 29 at 7:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.