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 $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 14, 2017 at 5:09
  • $\begingroup$ While in top or bottom view, try U->Project From View $\endgroup$
    – sambler
    Commented Mar 14, 2017 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
    Commented Mar 14, 2017 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
    Commented Mar 14, 2017 at 15:29

1 Answer 1


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!


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .