UV Mapping scaling issue

Dear D5 Staff,

I find the UV Mapping tool to be limited and very confusing. D5 seems to only have X & Y mapping controls as opposed to Lumion with (Box mapping) X, Y & Z controls. D5 appears to lack the ability to slow down the positioning of materials (Holding down ‘SPACE BAR’ in Lumion while adjusting the position of a material will slow down the process and allow you to Map more accurately (Lining up tile patterns for example). If I have a tile pattern .jpg image that is 1300mm x 1300mm, I will type a scale of 1.3 in Lumion. In D5, I need to type in 0.7692307…etc etc (1/1.3) and hope that the pattern will work properly over a larger area.’

Essentially, I don’t understand the logic in typing in say 0.5 to increase the size of a texture, and typing say 2, to decrease the size of a texture. Surely, it would be more logical to be the opposite. Could you introduce a toggle ‘invert’ switch for those users who prefer the opposite of this?

Many thanks.


I agree, the scales are confusing and difficult to set, if you are looking to get real size texture from an imported .jpg.

Hi Chris,

Thank you so much. It is so nice to have support on this one. I have added the this UVMapping issue to the ‘Voice of Users’. You could ‘Vote’ this one Up if you wish.

With kindest regards,

1 Like

Do you work with sketchup because then I know small tricks
for UV mapping and D5.

Hi Dadi,

Thank you…Yes, I do work with SketchUp, but only for furniture and other accessories. I use Revit LT for Architectural work.

My favourite website is 3DSky.org and I have collected hundreds of furniture and accessory items over a couple of years. I use ‘Lime Exporter’ combined with ‘Transmuter’ to convert 3DMax files into SketchUp files as I do not have a 3DMax license. I then use SketchUV and Thrupaint within SketchUp to alter the UV Mapping of materials. I currently use Lumion. If I import a couch for example and the UV Mapping is too big or small, I will alter the UVMap scale in SketchUp and then just refresh the model within Lumion.

With all that said…I think that the new furniture collection within D5 is amazing (the best I have seen) and of the same high quality as those within 3DSky and Turbosquid (one couch from Turbosquid can cost av.$35). The best thing about D5 assets is that you can change the materials (not just the colours) and UV scale of individual pieces of an asset (eg: Couch and cushions can be altered individually). In my opinion, this makes the D5 asset library far more valuable than Lumion’s asset library even if Lumion has a larger number of items. I actually don’t use Lumion assets (except for small items like books or cakes etc) because I cannot change the materials or UV Map scale (Lumion UV Map changes to ‘Box’ Mapping as soon as you change the value from zero. Both D5 and Twinmotion maintain the type of mapping even when scaled).

Unfortunately, at the moment I have to stay with Lumion and still use Assets from 3DSky because D5 does not support a Revit LT workflow at the moment. I can’t wait for Revit LT support so that I can switch and enjoy all of D5’s amazing assets. Once D5 has Revit LT support, I could ditch Lumion, Lime Exporter, Transmuter, 3DSky, Turbosquid…and maybe even SketchUp with SketchUV and ThruPaint.

I know this is a very long response. I am quite passionate about the software and am happy to share my current workflow methods and tips if it helps others. I am so impressed with D5 so far and I believe it is built upon a much better ‘core’ / UE4 than its competitors. (Twinmotion also has UE4 under the bonnet, but I just can’t get past the horrible UI). D5’s open Roadmap and ‘Voice of Users’ will help D5 develop in a direction that users want instead of waiting patiently until early November each year for a ‘Surprise’. Hey, surprise we now have number plates for cars instead of improving UV mapping for assets. I have a lifetime licence for D5, so I really want to see it develop in the right direction. It is a very young software that isn’t quite right yet for my workflow (there are other issues with D5 UV Mapping scales and with the 0,0,0, origin points of custom assets). I feel like a kid looking into the biggest candy store I have ever seen, but the doors just haven’t opened yet for me. I am hopeful that D5 will improve.

I would absolutely love to hear about your tips and tricks.

With kindest regards,

Hello Leah, thank you for the suggestion.

  1. About the UV calling issue, our UV adjustment is the same as 3dsmax does, also, we are preparing to optimize it in the future.
  2. About the Revit LT support, it is by design that Revit LT cannot run add-ins, Is it possible to use plugins or add-ins in Revit LT? | Revit LT | Autodesk Knowledge Network. So we cannot install D5 converter on it. But we will consider supporting rvt files in the future, thanks!

Hi Oliver,

Thank you for your response.

1. Re: UV Mapping issues…
I have already added suggestions to the forum ‘Ideas and requests’ and also to the ‘Voice of Users’. I have added the link to the ‘Voice of Users’ in case anyone reads this and would like to ‘Vote Up’ the request.

b: It would be great if D5 expanded their UVMap type to ‘Box Mapping’ (XYZ) at least rather than just X&Y.
c: I found issues with tiling. For example, I discovered that tiles from Sketchup (with the same SketchUp material) needed to be exploded down to their individual elements before D5 could recognise them as one material. This is also an issue with decking boards, timber window and door frames etc (a number of elements with the same material shouldn’t be UVMapped individually, but as a whole. Lumion UV Mapping is also very limited but the fundamentals still work much better than D5 at the moment. 3DMax has sophisticated UVMapping tools, but D5 has not adopted its best features. Sorry to be harsh, but it is better said so that improvements can be made.
I am so pleased to hear that you are preparing to optimise UV Mapping in the future.

2. Re: Revit LT Support…
I was desperate to find a solution where I could export a model from Revit Lt and import it into D5 (particularly since Lumion 12 was about to be released and I had to make a decision to upgrade or not). I tested different types of converters including workflows using middle-man software such as Rhino and SketchUp. Nothing worked well, so I gave up and forked out the money for the Lumion 12 upgrade.

Revit LT does not support plugins, however it is supported by:
- Lumion via .dwg import. Revit to Lumion via .fbx export is no longer workable since Autodesk upgraded the .fbx export to suit 3DMax better. I was disappointed that Lumion 12’s Revit .fbx support had not been upgraded as .dwg import is flawed for a number of reasons. D5 has the same problems as Lumion regarding .fbx import from Revit Lt. We just can’t use it. At least Lumion has a .dwg import as a backup plan.
- Twinmotion via .fbx import. (I was informed by Autodesk that Twinmotion and Enscape have been collaborating with Autodesk better than other companies and therefore the .fbx export (with material names) work well with Twinmotion, except for LOD / Smooth Curves.

I am sure that most Architectural companies (like the one I work for) use a mix of Full Revit and Revit LT to keep costs down. We are therefore seeking visualisation software that supports both Full Revit and Revit LT. Twinmotion currently has an edge over Lumion regarding Revit LT support. I am sure that if D5 had the ability to import .rvt files directly (with the ability to select LOD /Smooth Curves), it would have a serious edge over its competitors. I hope you introduce support for .rvt files soon, particularly before Lumion 13 is released.

With kind regards,

sorry to say but UV scale is not an issue, it’s normal actually.
It’s the same way as in every 3D soft

The fact is you’re not scaling texture, but scaling UV. UV is a 2D representation of your object. Each UV is a polygon (or triangle). If your scaling from 1 to 2 the UV, the square’s getting bigger then your texture eems to be smaller, but it’s not, texture is not moving. When your scaling
Imagine you’ve got a pool full of water, by adjusting UV scale, you are scaling the pool, not the water. It is the way it’s working.
Hope it makes sens.

thanks for transmutr, i didn’t know that soft it will be very usefull for me.

Hi Kana,

Thank you for your input and I am so glad you liked my suggestion about Transmuter. It took me ages to figure out how to get 3DSky / 3Dmax models into Lumion (via SketchUp). Paying a small amount for both Lime Exporter and Transmuter is well worth the money. You need the paid version of Lime Exporter to access the ‘Convert by Files’ button (image attached) where you just add the .zip file straight from 3DSky containing the 3DMax file. All Vray materials will come with it automatically. Use Lime Exporter to convert the file to .fbx before bringing it into Transmuter.

Before I respond to your comment about UV scaling, I just wanted to add a sentence from my last post that didn’t go through properly last time. I’m not sure why…

b: It would be great if D5 expanded their UVMap type to ‘Box Mapping’ (XYZ) at least rather than just X&Y.

I think the UV scale issue must be similar to the ‘Y’ vs ‘Z’ co-ordinate points upwards debate (Architects are familiar with ‘Z’ pointing to the sky, while game designers like ‘Y’ pointing upwards. ie Maya). Most architectural software will be interested in the real-life size of a texture. I have created a simple model of a tiled floor with 2 walls to demonstrate. Each tile is 600 x 600mm and so a 3x3 tile image would be 1800 x 1800mm (I have attached the tile image and screenshots from various software programs).

  • In LUMION, the ‘Map Scale’ is set to 1.8m

  • In REVIT, the ‘Scale / Sample Size’ is set to 1800 x 1800mm

  • In SKETCHUP, I set the ‘Texture Image size’ for the ‘Number 1’ Texture to 1800 x 1800 (even though the number doesn’t actually matter because I used SketchUV to Map the 3 x 3 tiles as Planar). What I wanted to demonstrate is the ‘Number 2’ texture was set at 900 x 900, which means that the image is half the size, and the ‘Number 3’ texture was set at 3600 x 3600 which would double the size of the image (not the other way round as in D5).

  • In RHINO, the ‘XYZ’ Scale of a texture works similar to SketchUp.

  • In D5, the ‘UV - Stretch’ needed to be set at 0.55 (1/1.8) in order to get the right size of the tiling texture. I hope the D5 Team also notices that I was not able to align the texture properly with the tile grout. This is because the tolerance of the ‘Offset’ only goes to 2 decimal places. It is therefore impossible to align the tiles.

I realise that some visualisation artists may be more familiar with the way D5 treats UV Map scaling, but I hope I have demonstrated that a number of popular architectural software is more interested in the real-life size of the texture. Therefore I am not asking D5 to change the UV Mapping, but to offer an invert toggle switch that would make Architects a lot happier with their product.


I was also meant to attach the tile texture image. I have also attached the D5 file if anyone wants to check it out. Let me know if you are successful in lining up the tiles with the grout.


(Attachment D5 - Tiling Experiment.drs is missing)


Still problems with one of my sentences…very strange.

Here it is again…I hope

It would be great if there was an invert switch so that you could type in the scale of the texture rather than how many times the material is tiled. I have attached an image of 2 renders of the same Bathroom. One was completed in Lumion and the other in D5 as a test. (It is the same image I used to explain the need for importing custom assets with their own 0,0,0 origin points). I have also attached the texture of the green tiles (Tiles_DILORENZO - Fez-Subway-Emerald - 1300 x 1300mm). The real-life size of the tile sample is 1300 x 1300mm, therefore I will type in 1.3m in Lumion. In D5, I need to type in 0.7692307692307692 (1/1.3), but can only type in 0.769 because of the limitation to 3 decimal places. I was therefore unable to scale and position the tiles accurately, which means that I would have to avoid ‘close-ups’.

Mmmm, sorry I can’t attach the D5 file.


Yes you’re right, architects have z pointing to the sky, because a piece of paper is x, y and it’s a house from the top, so z is the sky.
As animators we have x, y for face direction, then depth that is z.
It’s a shame we couldn’t find just one common rule :joy:

For UV map, maybe keep UV scaling, related proportionnal to a scale texture, both would be proportionnal ?
UV scale talk to me, but I understant scaling texture would be easier for others.

my english is really bad sorry for that !

by the way i am testing transmuter, it’s a game changing for me !

Hi Kana,

Yes you are right. It would be nice to have to have one system, but I do understand why things may differ between disciplines. Architects are used to working on plan and so it makes sense to have X&Y coordinates aligned with the ground, while animators would be used to seeing objects face on, so it makes sense to have the X&Y aligned with an Elevation view. I’m sure D5s UV Mapping system makes sense to animators, but as an Architect, I find it frustrating and inaccurate for what I am trying to achieve.

Regarding UV Mapping and Transmuter, I thought some artists might find my UVMap textures useful. They are simply the image provided with SketchUV (SketchUp free plug-in) with numbers added to them via Photoshop. I find them really useful. For example, not all 3DSky assets are UVMapped correctly even if they look good with their own textures. If they are not mapped properly, you will have trouble swapping their textures with your own within your preferred rendering software. I have attached a screenshot of 8 x FULL HOUSE sofas from 3DSky to demonstrate. None of the sofas were UVMapped correctly. Eg: You can see that the texture scale on the ‘Milton’ sofa is too big compared to the cushions. The textures on the cushions are misaligned and you have no idea if you can add a different pattern to each individual cushion or not.

The UV Mapping of the ‘Grace’ and ‘Nicole’ sofas have been altered using ‘SketchUV’ and ‘ThruPaint’ (within SketchUp). Now the texture scale is consistent and I can clearly see that the sofa and each cushion have different materials (due to the numbered UV images).

With all that said… the D5 asset library is great, and you may not have to download so many assets from 3DSky anymore (However the other method will give you a lot more control over textures / UVmapping). I did notice that some of D5’s furniture assets are the same as those within 3DSky and Turbosquid (eg: see screenshots from D5 and from Turbosquid. Notice the same blue ‘Vittoria’ bed. The other bed shown on the Turbosquid screenshot is worth $40 to buy). D5 assets are therefore quite valuable and are very different to Lumion assets as you can alter the materials directly within D5. Think of the $360/yr price for D5 Pro as 10 sofas from Turbosquid to put things in perspective. I think that is amazing value for money.

Before I go, another thing I wanted to mention is that while D5 still needs to introduce better UV mapping tools (like XYZ mapping instead of just XY, at least), it surpasses UVMapping capabilities of Lumion in another way as it maintains the UVMap type when a texture is scaled (Twinmotion is also good at that). Also, D5 can still recognise the different directions of Revit Roof planes when a material is scale whereas Lumion cannot. This means that for D5, I can create a Revit roof as one piece, whereas for Lumion, I have to model every roof plane separately and have at least 2 different materials for a roof.