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 - msperling

Pages: 1 2 [3]
We are looking into a more advanced solution.

You might ask Unity to "fix" their shading. Or to implement a switch in their Editor settings that allows us to Chose from either toolbag, substance painter or quixel shading support.
Authoring Tools and the engine shader should work in tandem for optimal results.


I suggest including an Auto Updater or an Update button in the software. It would speed up ... well ... updating. :)

there is a really interesting UV packing tool on the way:

Thx for pointing that one out. It looks promising so I'll give it a go.

I'd throw money at you for making a tool that unwraps with normal map (and any other baked maps) creation and desired texel density in mind - symmetry, UV offsets into neighbouring quadrants, hard edges that get converted to uv island cuts... all this time consuming repetitive stuff would highly benefit from automization. Being creative should be about colors and shapes - not about pelt mapping and splitting the right edges. If one absolutely needs to do manual tweaks it should be at the end of an automic process. So I agree - UV mapping in general seems to evolve very slowly.

Any success so far?

I will pm you a link to a dropbox file that contains the textures with visible artifacts as well as the substance painter project.

My colleague is experiencing something similar with his trial version.
Maps exported at a size of 4k by 4k tend to have large areas of texture artifacts. In the end he had to step down to 2k by 2k textures for SP to generate useable results.
Is this a memory problem?

While I didn't see your request that's exactly what my colleague and I were looking for when I wrote that post. That should really help in figuring out the way a larger layer stack works.

Hey folks,

while working with Substance Painter it would be really useful to indent layers that reside within a certain folder.
Also some colorization of the folder and its children would be nice to quickly identify the structure of your shading layers.

When will you guys update your website and EULAs to reflect the $100k revenue change? So far only some threads on Polycount, Unity and Steam mention this feature. Ok... and your website states this underneath the indie pack.
A little more detail would be appreciated. :)

I feel your pain, rascal. Non square POT textures are a must have in games.

*pokes the feature with a stick*
Is it dead?

Since I'm nowhere near to you to buy you a burger or a cup of coffee I just ordered the upgrade to 5.0. Maybe that helps to revive the feature? :)

Meh, I bought the indie version from Steam on December 31st. Clever you.
Ok, so I can upgrade to 5 for 50 bucks and have a code for Steam when it's released?

I was somewhat surprised to see that you cannot bake non-square maps since these are used in game development for ages.
We use them for many of our ship assets due to them being rather long. Getting them onto a square map would either waste tons of texture space or require us to break the hull into unintuitively scattered parts all over the map.

So will we see an upgrade to 4.6 that adds non-square texture baking support? Or will we have to buy version 5?

Pages: 1 2 [3]