How to texture more easily?

[AntINFINAIt]

I made a model and i tried to put a texture on it,and it is hard. My approach was to export the UV mapping and edit it with MS Paint. Do you have any suggestions, because it is really hard.I made some materials in unity , and gave texture to the mesh in Unity. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE UV MAPPP??  Thank you guys

Model i'm trying to texture:(please rate)(and i don't know why sketchfab is not rendering the pipes and some parts, may be help to fix that)

https://sketchfab.com/models/5afe0410197640e2a87e9c42564ed5dc

 

 

That is what i did in UNITY to the mesh:(and also my game doesn't load the part helpp)

[AntINFINAIt]

And what to use best: Unwrap or SMART UV PROJECT?

[Kell Valar]

Hey you! 

So, you will need to learn to UV Unwrap.

There is no shortcut, friend! It is painful at start, I know. But you will learn to like it! Forget Smart UV Project and stuff like that, do it by hand. Also, I would switch over to Blender, it is free and has a lot of good tutorials. Check out Blenderguru at Youtube, especially the Donut and Anvil series. 

[AntINFINAIt]

On 05.03.2018 at 3:55 PM, Kell Valar said:

Hey you! 

So, you will need to learn to UV Unwrap.

There is no shortcut, friend! It is painful at start, I know. But you will learn to like it! Forget Smart UV Project and stuff like that, do it by hand. Also, I would switch over to Blender, it is free and has a lot of good tutorials. Check out Blenderguru at Youtube, especially the Donut and Anvil series. 

I am modeling in Blender, from the start i was using blenda' , and yes, thanks! When i saw Blender Guru tutorials when he was unwraping uvs by hand but smart uv project worked for me. Now i experiment with manual unwraping. And texture in Photoshop .

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

@AntINFINAIt Just a tip: NEVER use SmartUV! It will UV unwrap it in a way in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to texture it (dozens of tiny UV islands).

EDIT: Also check out BornCG's Blender 2.7 Tutorial series on YouTube

Link:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLda3VoSoc_TR7X7wfblBGiRz-bvhKpGkS

Edited March 11, 2018 by Bottle Rocketeer 500

[Ger_space]

On 3/11/2018 at 12:12 PM, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

@AntINFINAIt Just a tip: NEVER use SmartUV! It will UV unwrap it in a way in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to texture it (dozens of tiny UV islands).

EDIT: Also check out BornCG's Blender 2.7 Tutorial series on YouTube

Link:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLda3VoSoc_TR7X7wfblBGiRz-bvhKpGkS

Im a big fan of Substance Painter... I don't care much about the UV layout as long its complete and the texel density is about right. But a license for only one engine is a bit overkill... 

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

On 2/24/2018 at 2:59 PM, AntINFINAIt said:

doesn't load

Hi as everybody else has addressed the texture, I'll mention the perhaps why of the model not loading. I believe from looking at the picture, texture problems aside, that you applied a convex mesh collider in unity,  this has failed due to the model being very high poly and prevented the model from exporting properly. Convex colliders can have no more than 256 triangles, and unity being unity bases the convex collider on the models own mesh . so if there's as many poly's/tri's in that engine bell as there appears to be ( considerably more than 256) the attempted collider generation will fail.

Check the bottom of the unity editor window for errors i suspect they are collider related.  Until you can optimise models for the game you will need to use a basic primitive collider,  so create a simple cylinder collider that fits snugly  and use that for your engine instead

Edited March 15, 2018 by SpannerMonkey(smce)

[Wolf Baginski]

I am not sure that a collider for something like that engine should ever be more than a simple cylinder. The key point is this: "The collision mesh is required to be a convex solid (no concavities)." That's at https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Part_Modelling_Guidelines#Collision_Mesh , a page which we're warned is out of date.

I am sure I have seen more recent models with a collision mesh that conflicts with that description, maybe one of the Gemini-style capsules, but why bother with anything more complicated for this case? The collision mesh is for triggering earth-shattering kabooms, not for looking nice.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

5 hours ago, Wolf Baginski said:

I am sure I have seen more recent models with a collision mesh that conflicts with that description,

Any collider that appears concave in game is constructed  from many smaller convex colliders. There's no limit on the amount of colliders that can be used for a part ,   apart from patience and unity's poly limit (lots)  Any part that features a nice collision mesh despite odd shapes , without parts sinking of floating on the surface  is also likely to be composed of many smaller colliders, all combining to form a complete shell.

 

[Wolf Baginski]

11 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Any collider that appears concave in game is constructed  from many smaller convex colliders. There's no limit on the amount of colliders that can be used for a part ,   apart from patience and unity's poly limit (lots)  Any part that features a nice collision mesh despite odd shapes , without parts sinking of floating on the surface  is also likely to be composed of many smaller colliders, all combining to form a complete shell.

 

I had a look at some stuff and, yes, that's what I found. The usual technical term I have seen for this sort of collider shape is "convex hull" (and I know I am picky about words and phrasing). You can make something quite complicated with multiple colliders, but it has a cost, memory and clock-cycles, and I have seen enough excessive detail, here for KSP and elsewhere, that it gets irritating. Marvellous models, but who will ever see the details in use?

Elsewhere, I have used a game environment that had some tools in it for seeing this sort of complexity, getting a number for just how much work needs to be done to render an object, and I see a 20:1 range for visually similar items. I've never seen things getting that crazy here, and we each have pretty good control over what we have in KSP when we're running it. It's not like a multi-player online environment (and most don't allow user-created content anyway).

Sometimes, a single implausibly big engine might be more fun than a realistic multi-engine rig in the style of a Falcon 9, because it's only one part, with a simpler-to-render mesh. It's a bit like the difference between the Snacks! life support mod and others.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. But if KSP wasn't fun, would any of us be here now?