Author Topic: designer tangent map vs painter tangent map  (Read 8398 times)

Hey Everybody

I bumped into a problem generatiing tangent map to lumberyard engine from designer, instead of from painter which gives good result.

Here is a link with an explanatory image that shows all the info i have and the end result of the normalmaps in lumberyard

Here is a link with all the models+textures+sbs+spp files if  You want to check thing out:

Thanks for the help in advance
Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 07:50:30 pm

this is just getting more and more interesting:

i'm really curious what am i doing wrong, because the stuff only bad in lumberyard
i tried it in unity, unreal editor, marmoset toolbar, and my normalmaps (with the axis corrections of course) it just working perfectly fine with the same fbx mesh

only lumberyard creates this strange artifact

i tried to export from painter the "hipoly mesh related" tangent map created in designer, and it's still working
so the key of the problem is i can only export proper mesh related to lumberyard (baked from highpoly to lowpoly) tangent map only from painter!
in designer there is no way to export a tangent map that is "mesh related" into lumberyard and get a proper result
please prove it that i'm wrong :)

strange - both of the normal maps look the same

I am curious, what happens, if you export your fbx from modo with "save smoothing groups" on?

please don´t think I am ignoring your explanation, but if I look at the comparison at the bottom of your image, between the left and the right image - it really looks to me as if the left cubes show one single smoothing group (smooth), while the cubes on the right side have separate smoothing groups for each face (faceted)

I imported your cubetest_lo.fbx into 3dsMax - and the faces don´t have smoothing groups assigned. Different engines interpret faces without smoothing groups in different ways: some engines display them as faceted (separate smoothing groups), while other engines display them as smooth (single smoothing group)
btw, why does the shader on the left side look different from the shader on the right side (the left one looks way more reflective)?

So i still would be tempted to think, that your issue has nothing to do with the normal maps :)

Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 02:01:43 pm

Hey michael_11

beside not saying that You have no right, i already found the "solution" (more like a workaround) , explained in prev of your post :)
i just import my designer made tangent map trough painter (literally just drag and drop the tangent file to a fill layer and export as lumberyard ddn) and it works perfectly

i don't want to pretending to know what smoothing groups doing (there was a time when i tough i know what are those things :D), but as i mentioned i used the same fbx both to painter and designer
both the softwares have an option called average normals (it's something like autosmooth i guess, because there is an angle attribute next to the average normals (in painter), but i leaved it turned off) so i guess they are using smoothing the same way (but i don't know this for sure), and all the realtime engines i used until today has the option to use custom normals (the normals are coming with the imported mesh file)

i tried the same fbx in unity, marmoset, unreal, and it worked perfectly with designer baked normalmap
only lumberyard failed to use tangent map from designer.

the only logical reason (with the knowledge i have) why lumberyard failing is because lumberyard (cryengine) using metainfo in their texture file (stored not beside the texture in a file (as unity or unreal does), but in the texture file itself)
so i guess, because painter has lumberyard preset, maybe (but i'm really just guessing) there are meta info that put in the texture by painter, and because designer don't has those fancy presets, i guess lumberyard simply missing that metainfo that shows this is a normalmap

and again, i tried out that i put the designer made tangent map trough painter (imported into painter, end exported out with lumberyard preset), and it works perfectly

so i'm not saying that You don't have a point but unless it's not failing this method is ok to me :P

"btw, why does the shader on the left side look different from the shader on the right side (the left one looks way more reflective)?"
no, but because of the frakked up shading on the left side, the planes of the cube are behaving like lens :D
on the right side i'm using the same mesh and material, just changed the normalmap, and because i have a grey plane under the cube, You can see only that big grey "spot" on the side of the cube (if You look closely You still can see the same "lens" reflection effects on the "rivets")

thanks for the reply!

Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 05:36:39 pm