I made a UV map and an eye texture based on the map and attached the texture to the eyeball. I decided to just put the image on the object without using a UV map node because I heard that blender will now unwrap the images correctly if you have a UV map for the object. I then went into material mode and low and behold the image was placed correctly on the object. Then I decided to do a test render and the image shrunk around the object and I am curious as to why it renders differently than it appears in material mode, and what I can do to fix it? Do I just need to use the UV map node? BTW, I'm using cycles render engine.
-
$\begingroup$ could you please post your blend file? something is strange here indeed. $\endgroup$– aliasguruJul 19, 2016 at 9:53
-
$\begingroup$ Yeah, I have really shauty internet, but I should be able to post it tomorrow. $\endgroup$– Isak JonesJul 20, 2016 at 4:38
1 Answer
By default, Blender uses 'Generated' Corrdinates for placing textures on objects when rendering with Cycles. In the viewport however, when you have Cycles selected as a render engine, the texture node which is selected will be previewed on the object using the currently selected UV map. That's why you see it mapped correctly in the viewport, but mapped in a different fashion in the rendering.
Now I don't know why you were told that Blender would not unwrap correctly using the UV map node, but anyways: Use either a Texture Coordinates Node and plug the UV output to the 'Vector' input. This will use the UV map from the object which is currently marked as 'renderable' (yellow circles in screenshot). Or, you use the UV Map node. Here you can choose the name directly, but remember that if you rename the UV Map later on in the mesh data, you'll need to update the input field in the node as well (red circles).
-
$\begingroup$ By default if object has no UV maps it will use Generated coordinates. If it was unwrapped, by default Cycles will use that UV map. Doesn't matter if that UV map was plugged into the Vector input of texture or not. $\endgroup$– Mr ZakJul 19, 2016 at 9:19
-
$\begingroup$ hmmm true, didn't know that. Thx for clarification. $\endgroup$ Jul 19, 2016 at 9:52
-
$\begingroup$ I'll try this tonight and see if it works, Thanks! $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2016 at 4:41
-
$\begingroup$ This worked, thanks! I never realized that the material view didn't necessarily show the image accurately. $\endgroup$ Jul 21, 2016 at 21:46