I'm having a bit of an annoying problem when unwrapping a model of mine.

The model is pyramid-like, with two sets of polygons angled away from each other connected by a rectangular band running around the middle:

The model.  Top (left), Side (right)

The problem is when I unwrap using the standard method (U -> Unwrap), the top and bottom parts are malformed, with one edge of the tip being shorter than the other (below, left).

However, when I use standard unwrap but with the conformal method rather than angle-based, it seems to be correct (below, right).

enter image description here

The angle-based unwrap seems to be placing one of the vertices in the tip incorrectly but I can't seem to figure out why. All values should be correct (scale, rotation, location) and normals are good.

I've typically been able to get good, consistent results with the angle-based method. Is there something I'm missing this time around?

Thank you for any help in advance!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is no "correct" or "incorrect" UV location, it all boils down to what unwrap method you used; there is no obligation that an unwrap ends up symmetrical by default. Also I see no triangles there, only to quads. How did you unwrap and what method did you use? If it is not how you want it use a different method, mark seams and/or fix it by hand $\endgroup$ – Duarte Farrajota Ramos Mar 14 '17 at 5:09
  • $\begingroup$ While in top or bottom view, try U->Project From View $\endgroup$ – sambler Mar 14 '17 at 7:42
  • $\begingroup$ @DuarteFarrajotaRamos Apologies, my initial posting was insufficiently detailed. I've gone ahead and updated the main post, but to answer you here, I was using angle-based U -> Unwrap. Switching to conformal seems to have fixed it but I'm still confused as to why angle-based isn't doing it correctly. $\endgroup$ – Antillies Mar 14 '17 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ @sambler That would definitely work, but I'm hoping to get the correct results using the angle-based standard unwrap. $\endgroup$ – Antillies Mar 14 '17 at 15:29

Well, I may be a bit of an idiot, but I found the issue.

The two front vertices were missing the edges that would have connected them to the edge running back to front. Old mesh (left), new mesh (right):

enter image description here

When unwrapped, results were as desired:

enter image description here

Thank you to those who responded!


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.