Girl
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/4958/girlkz7.jpg
Girl UV
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/1821/girluvmh5.jpg
Printable View
Waste less space, k? This is probably the 5th time you've shown us UVs you've made and you still haven't gotten any better. Take our advice already.
Who modeled that girl?
If I was to try and use as much space as possible then I would end up with uvs like this.
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9360/girluvbadzd4.jpg
Who else?
Tbh that's better than what you first posted.
The texture is going to be low-res and I wanted the UV to be aligned right in the case of extreme dithering or pixelated normal maps. But if it seems to please you guys better. Then I will UV like that.
The priority of the individual shells are screwed up. I would want the face piece the biggest, followed by the clothing/arms/legs. However, it's your Layout not mine.
In all honesty, I liked the layout of the first better, just utilize your space more.
On the first one, I scaled the UV elements according to detail importance. Most of the skin was going to be hidden by the clothes so I scaled that lower then the actual clothes. And I aligned them so then the detail I plan on putting on them have more pixel flow. But apparently not everyone agrees on that.
DEE, the reason why everybody keeps bugging you about the UV mapping you've been doing is because you seem not the realize that all of that extra space = detail that could have been there. That black space is screaming "fill me in fill me in fill me in." You don't want to be racist now do you ;) ?
I scale the elements the same way I want the detail amount to be. The uvs are fine for what I plan on doing what I need to do with them. The skin elements are smaller as they have less detail. The cloth is bigger. But the way I pack them is to have better pixel flow and so they are easier to texture since I separated the cloth elements from the skin elements. If I was to use the second one then I would have pixelated normal maps and textureing it will be a bitch.