Cage: How messy does it get, though? What I mean is, do you have a solution in principle, which just doesn't deliver a usable quality, or don't you have a solution at all?

I think the first step would be to look at the seams in the "donor" figure (the one that you take the UV mapping from) and try to determine the best possible seams for the target figure from those. Is that something you've done, partially done or not done at all?

Once you have that, it should be pretty much a matter of book-keeping and the proper mangling of coordinate values. Tricky, but certainly not impossible. Obviously, there can be all kinds of quality problems like overlaps and overshoots, so even if the problem is "solved" in principle (what the mathematician in might call solved) it might not be good enough to use in practice.

See what I'm getting at?

But anyway, I think IanPorter meant just the opposite direction: given you have matching UVs for two figures, could that be used to derive a correlation file for the morph transfer? I think that's probably an easier problem, because you don't need to figure out where to put seams. On the other hand, I don't know how useful that would be. My feeling is that matching the shapes of two figures in 3d is easier than matching their UVs.

-- I'm not mad at you, just Westphalian.