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 - cjwidd

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13
Currently, Iray supports bloom, but flares will be present regardless of your settings configuration. It would be nice to support bloom with no flares whatsoever.

Substance PainterSubstance Painter - Feature Requests - Iray ctrl + z
 on: August 07, 2017, 10:58:55 pm 
Would be nice to be able to undo Iray adjustments. Currently, when Iray viewer or displays settings are changed, you cannot undo, and step back to the previous setting.

Substance PainterSubstance Painter - Feature Requests - Transform Tools
 on: August 07, 2017, 09:13:21 am 
It might be nice to have simple transform tools to (at least) define the rotation of an object.

Sometimes it can be difficult or tedious to recreate a pose, e.g. Meet Mat submission rules.

Currently alt + shift left click will perform a snap rotation of the camera angle in the viewport. This is an incredibly handy navigation aid and I wish other 3D modeling applications supported it.

However, it would also be nice to be able to do a smooth axis constrained orbit as well. For example, snap to an axis (as above), and then rotate smoothly through that axis. This is possible in 3Ds Max.

Substance PainterSubstance Painter - Feature Requests - Iray render presets
 on: August 07, 2017, 07:50:40 am 
It would be nice to be able to save Iray render settings (viewer settings and display settings) in a data file of some kind, which could be loaded to quickly toggle presets for different render scenarios.

Is it possible to render SSS in Iray for Substance Painter 2017.2.0? SSS is clearly visible in the editor, but not in Iray. Adjusting MDL parameters and / or setting the shader model to PBRSSS does not help.

I too am unable to get SSS to render Iray. The settings in the MDL drop down menu did not help(?)

The faux subsurface scattering on the arms is incredibly believable. Could you talk a little about how you achieved the smooth gradient and color balancing on that area to achieve such a high quality effect?

The height detail on the face is incredible. Could you talk a little about how you achieved the brushed / oil paint effect for that area?

bump - this is a must have for hard surface

Yep, I was just about to post that I found the answer here:

Substance PainterSubstance Painter - Technical Support - Rings on a Barrel
 on: April 29, 2017, 03:43:41 am 
How to apply metal edge wear from height map channel, if height detail was not baked down from a high poly model?

For example, take a low poly cylinder, bake control maps from low poly cylinder. Apply a metal barrel material that contains height data for the concentric rings (typical of metal barrels). Now apply metal edgewear generator. How can you get the erosion of effect of metal edge wear to apply to the rings, if the low poly bake produced a curvature map that is flat?

*See attached for low and high poly models

The answer seems to be 'unify'.

EDIT: Whether you unify or break the normals may not matter (apart from vertex count), because SP2 allows you to average normals for the projection shell, one way or another; this achieving something similar.

Firstly, I'd like to thank the Allegorithmic support staff for all their help in troubleshooting the 3D content creation workflow and all it's foibles. Allegorithmic has done so much for the 3D community and I really appreciate it.

When baking a normal map for a chamfered cube (high poly) to a 6-sided cube (low poly), I am able to do this successfully regardless of whether the normals of the low poly cube are 'unified' or 'broken'. However, this is not the case for more complex geometry.

In 3DS Max, unifying normals sets the direction for each unified normal to be perpendicular to the averaged surface at that point. Breaking normals orients each separated normal perpendicular to its respective face (see attached; unify (left), break (right)).

My question is, what is the *correct* option when preparing a low poly model for export to SP2, unify or break?

I'm curious about best practices for baking intersecting or orthogonal geometry in a seamless mesh (see attached). This railing was a bit of a trick to bake properly in SP2, and involved detaching the mesh into numerous pieces to avoid different types of projection issues. Doing so was a little tedious, but probably impossible if not for SP2 'match by name' option. Any advice?

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13