# drawTriangles() UV Mapping only good for Planes?

**URL:** <https://forum.kirupa.com/t/drawtriangles-uv-mapping-only-good-for-planes/294983>\
**Category:** flash\
**Created:** [August 23, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/drawtriangles-uv-mapping-only-good-for-planes/294983 "2009-08-23T23:28:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![shade\_v2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9adbd/32.png) [@shade\_v2](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/shade_v2)\
**Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/drawtriangles-uv-mapping-only-good-for-planes/294983/1 "2009-08-23T23:28:12Z")

</div>

I’m just coming back to toying with 3d in flash. All my previous efforts were made in AS2 so drawTriangles() is liquid-awesome to me… Still, am I right in thinking that the UV mapping of drawTriangles is only really useful for two-triangle planar evaluations? In other words, there isn’t any way to pipe in the UV map data required to skin a whole model - even a simple cube - in one call to drawTriangles, is there?

I got my hopes up when I saw I could draw the whole wireframe of an object in one call, but everything I read suggests the UV coordinates are relative to the vertices, not the indices. So I’m thinking that the UV value for a vertex can’t be redefined for triangles sharing vertices as described by the index. Is that right?

If so, I guess you could draw the whole thing in a single call if you threw away your index and passed all the unconsolidated vertex information. Seems like an awful waste if that’s right. I must be missing something. Help?