Hello! This thread is meant for collecting feedback on the features and improvements that will be implemented for the GSoC 2021 project - UV Editor Improvements.
Important Links :
Could be good if in the pack islands to area, the user can tell the exact coordinates in the redo panel.
Thanks for the feedback @Alberto !
I agree specifying exact coordinates might help with giving more precise control over the packing area. There’s a couple of issues with the operator that I’m trying to fix right now, but I’ll definitely look into this once I’m finished.
Nice work, please consider a way to lock the proportions of the packing area to 1:1
Thanks @NunoConceicao ! I’ll look into that. Might be better to have that as separate property for the operator, but providing visual feedback for the bounding area might be tricky.
Meanwhile I’ve created a separate post for feedback. It would be better to provide feedback and suggestions there.
Cool, as a suggestion maybe a shortcut similar to photoshop to contraint the proportions, like Shift key to make the selection always square. Something along those lines…
One question, is in the planning of dynamic grid some way to put an aspect ratio for the grid? Because to have an image of 512x1024 to change the aspect ratio is a big problem.
@Alberto might be best to continue the conversation here : GSoC 2021: UV Editor Improvements - Feedback . This thread is meant for weekly reports
To answer your question : No, changing aspect ratio is not a part of the design task. This will mostly affect the UDIM grid and is more of a base that will work with Grid snapping (4th task on my list of deliverables).
@JohnDow, I’ve deleted your post with a screenshot/video of other software embedded, see here for why:
One of the biggest flaws right now about UV mapping in Blender is the lack of a proper packing algorithm that takes into account empty spaces inside islands.
Is this being taken into account?
The current pack system is pretty bad leveraging the available UV area, since small pieces are not located inside bigger pieces that have empty spaces.
Can one of the moderators move the feedbacks to the feedback thread gsoc-2021-uv-editor-improvements-feedback/19310. to have a clean weekly reports
Feedback is welcome but it would be best to provide that on this thread.
I’ve moved the feedback posts here in the interest of keeping a clean thread for weekly reports and separate thread for feedback.
@JuanGea There are no plans on implementing a new packing algorithm. It’s more of a long term task and not a part of the GSoC project.
Understood, thanks for the clarification 
I’d absolutely love to see an actual UV relax method / algorithm to do iterative relax, that takes into account the model topology / etc as other DCC programs have.
It’s my #1 issue I have in blender when I do my UV pass. As blender often only gets half
way there, and I can’t properly relax to the degree I need to. So I then need to send to another program to do it and send back again.
I can do pretty much everything else in blender with native / addon tools. But I’ve never seen a proper relax yet. Although it’s probably out of scope for this task?
Keep up the great work!
@mattli911 Unfortunately a relax tool is not a part of the GSoC project.
You can find the tasks I’m primarily working on here : ⚓ T88990 UV Editor Improvements - GSoC 2021
To clarify: That video contained showcase of non-copyrightable features (procedures, process, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, etc.) of a user-made add-on for a discontinued application
Then the width and height parameters of the dinamic grid proposal
@Alberto There seems to be some confusion regarding this. You might be referring to pixel resolution part of the design task T78389.
To clarify, I’m only working on the Dynamic grid part of the design task, not Pixel resolution and Texel size.
looking forward to having this in Blender! Great work so far 
