Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updating UVs on a surface behave differently between v4.1.2 and v4.2-beta3 #84578

Closed
nikywilliams opened this issue Nov 7, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Comments

@nikywilliams
Copy link

nikywilliams commented Nov 7, 2023

Godot version

v4.2.beta3.mono.official [e8d57af]

System information

Godot v4.2.beta3.mono - Windows 10.0.19045 - Vulkan (Mobile) - dedicated Radeon RX 580 Series (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; 31.0.21031.1005) - Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700K CPU @ 3.70GHz (12 Threads)

Issue description

On v4.1.2 I was working on a process to combine all static meshes (glb) into 1 in order to improve performance. Additionally, each mesh needed to have their UVs adjusted so it could utilize a single material more efficiently. This involved collecting a list of surfaces, adjusting vertices, normals, and UVs, and then adding the surfaces back to a new ArrayMesh.

This had been working fine in v4.1.2, but after upgrading to v4.2-beta3 I noticed all the colors were not correct.

I did notice that once I ticked the "Force Disable Compression" box on the mesh import, that it appears to be working again in v4.2-beta3.
Is this possibly related to bug #84270?

Left side is v4.1.2 and the right side is v4.2-beta3
image

I've attached a zip which contains a very minimal project for both v4.1.2 and v4.2-beta3 that only focuses on the UVs. Line 11 is where I'm setting the Scale and Offset for the UV on the mesh.

Steps to reproduce

See attached projects

Minimal reproduction project

godot.zip

@AThousandShips
Copy link
Member

AThousandShips commented Nov 7, 2023

Please try beta5, several issues has been solved in the last weeks, this looks like one of those

@nikywilliams
Copy link
Author

Understood, I'll try the updated beta and report back when I'm able.

@AThousandShips
Copy link
Member

In the future make sure you have an up-to-date version when making a report :)

@clayjohn
Copy link
Member

clayjohn commented Nov 7, 2023

This is most likely fixed by #84159 which is included in Beta4 and Beta5.

@nikywilliams
Copy link
Author

I can confirm it is fixed in a later beta. Will close this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants