Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mik.a.

Pages: [1]
If i have a folder selected, and i create a new paint/fill layer... it should be created INSIDE that folder.

This would be useful, maybe can be implemented with a key modifier like shift + add layer: new layer will be created inside or below currently selected folder/layer.

Similar thing can be done to hide all selected layers/folders at once (and improve performance), currently seems like the only way is switching them on/off one by one.

with some island (0.2) just to be sure.

You're correct, forgot to write that also that is needed. Glad it helped :)

Had two probably similar/related problems (SP 2.1.0):
-after creating a fill layer i wasn't able to disable the various channels;
-when using projection painting i was no more able to change the texture assigned to the various channels.
Unfortunately i don't know the steps that led to those bugs, to solve them had to restart SP.

just remembered 2.1.1 was out, forgot that becouse: [Version checker] Check for update failed.

You've got overlapping UV pieces, i guess you used smart UV unwrap? Lowering the angle limit to something around 40 should solve the problem.

In SP uncheck average normals (as you did) and lower the max frontal distance to 0,005 or even less, this will partially solve the artifacts where you got edges very "sharp" and near between each other. After that the normal map should be ok.

Probably you already have found the way days ago... anyway i rename the mesh/object from the object properties tab.
Low poly object with the suffix   _low   and high poly with suffix    _high . Then export low poly objects all together as fbx/obj, same thing for the high poly ones.

The first point will be solved on our side, the second one can only be "solved" by increasing the amount of samples

Good to know that, thanks!

What file format did you use to import your mesh ?

I used the .fbx  attached in post #1, exported from Blender, but you can directly test the .spp in post #4 .
Seems like there is no difference between obj and fbx, even with the option to include binormal and tangent vectors.
Out of curiosity, am i the only viewing those seams?

Cyrille: there are no normalmaps and bumps...
I'm not sure about second question. Is the option in SP when importing the mesh? Tried with checkbox checked and uncheked but result is the same.
The faces slightly change "tilt angle" only when switching Nmap format from one to the other (even if there is no Nmap imported/used in the project).

Fabian: i forgot to specify in the first post that the material applied to the planes is "basic", triplanar seems like is not solving the issue.

I have attached the .spp file, zipped, should explain even better :)


are you trying to get the pattern to go the same direction?


Thanks for checking but no, in my example the material applied to all three planes is simply a very dark plain base color + roughness set at 0 to show better the problem. Those seams should not be there unless i'm overlooking something...

In Painter i have an issue in the 3d viewport where there is an UV seam/cut:
if two adiacent edges don't have the same "orientation" in the UV layout then the faces normals displayed on the SP viewport are not "correct".
However seems like is just a visual issue with the SP viewport as the normal map is exported correctly, in the example below as flat values.

Hopefully the example image and fbx can explain better.
First square (from left) don't have problems. The others with UV islands rotated show the problem, they give the impression the faces are tilted even if the mesh is flat and there is no normalmap.

The problem is from my side or from SP? Any way to fix the issue, apart from rotating the UV islands edges (which i guess would be nearly impossible on more complex meshes)?

edit: the material applied to the planes is a fill with uniform base color, roughness at 0, no normalmap/bump or additional maps.

Even if i think that triangle may not be an issue related to only the generator, you can try to directly paint over the generator effect like so, check the upper layer:

edit: open image in new tab if too small

Pages: [1]