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 - gary_12

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
That is amazing. Thank you!


Is this what you need?

Using "Desert Sandstone Dark" from Source in Alchemist as the base layer, and then putting the "Stonewall Pattern" filter on it, the displacement looks like it drops to 8 bit (or even less)  This is not a texture size issue, as I'm at 2048 and it actually looks worse than at 1024...Is there some setting I should be using to make the height channels blend properly?
At 1024 and 2048 below. 

I've noticed this stepping in C4D when using Redshift, and I always thought it was the crappy implementation of the Substance plugin inside C4D (It falls back to 8-bit) and also because these stair steps don't show up when using baked out versions of the textures - but these 2 screenshots are inside Alchemist.  Can anyone point me in the direction to resolve this?  I'm hoping if I understand what is causing this, it might help me trouble shoot substances inside C4D being rendered with Redshift also.  Been battling this for 2 years!


Are you using parallax or actual displacement?  I recommend actual displacement...however, be aware that as you paint the displacement, the polygons will jump away from where you're painting.  It's almost like additive or subtractive sculpting when you set it up right.  (Not the parallax kind - the other...don't recall what it's called in Painter)

One problem I see that might arise from your suggestion is that Painter keeps all those strokes around so that you can export to a higher resolution.   Rather than the software re-interpolating the artwork at a pixel level (like scaling up in Photoshop) it is going back and re-painting everything using your original strokes, at a higher resolution.   At least that is my understanding. 

But yes, I agree, it can be a problem in longer painterly sessions.

Maybe allow the flattening, and pop up a warning saying you loose the ability for higher res exports or something like that.

As of the announcements from a few days ago, this is definitely a thing, and is going to be included in SP, however it is in closed beta and will continue to be in closed beta through at least January 2020.  Waiting to hear when actual release date is.

The plugin is now integrated into C4D, so development of that feature is done by Maxon now, not Adobe (Allegorithmic).

To be honest, I've noticed that live substance materials (sbsar) brought into C4D look better in standard and physical render.

We have the conversion tool you mentioned in the redshift menu, but I don't think it always gets things right.  Also, the Substance plugin for C4D is incapable of 16 bit (or higher) grayscale, which is required for proper displacement.

So, I almost never use a live substance material.  Instead I use the baked cache files, or I use Substance Painter.

The thing is, unless you need the material to be live because you plan to animate a parameter, there's really no reason to use a live material inside C4D.  It always has to bake to raster files anyway, which kills the benefit of being able to get "real time" feedback of a live material.

Just updating this thread in case any one stumbles in here looking for the same answers.  Cross texture painting will be in closed beta still in early 2020.  Not sure of a release date as of yet.  Looks like they have it mostly working, but perhaps there are still some stability issues to be worked out (as evidenced by the live stream where it crashed - ha).

So soon-ish I guess? 

Yeah this seems like a huge omission for a very basic painting feature.   Has it since been implemented?  I don't see a way to do it. Hoping I've just missed it and it's in there.

Looks like a release date of Dec 17 for the new Painter version from what I can tell.  Still don't know if that will have cross texture painting though.

One can only hope!

The 2020 release should roll out before the end of the month, so maybe this long-awaited feature will be in there.   I guess we wait and see.

What "move" are you speaking of?

Currently I handle it by not doing UDIMs, but instead doing texture sets for different parts of a model where the seams can be hidden.  Takes a little more planning and won't work in every situation.   For me, the biggest issue has been doing large scale landscapes where I need to do a zoom in from far away and end up close to the model, or doing even small objects that I want to zoom in super close to the details. 

I recently did an Aladdin's lamp where the surface had all these sculpted details.  I did those details with displacement and normals in Substance Painter. I quickly realized I needed more resolution and multiple textures with cross texture painting would have been ideal.

It turned out ok, but really could have used about 3 or 4 times the number of pixels in those textures, and I didn't want any seams running through the details.

My guess would be no.  The writing's on the wall.  Perpetuals are on the way out the door, and subs are what will be available for future. It's happening everywhere.  Maxon, X-Particles, Substance, the list goes on.  Once a company starts offering subs as an option, they soon switch to ONLY offering them.  (By soon, I mean within a couple of years)

I'm not a pitchforks and torches kind of guy...but I see the pattern here, and it's easy to see what is coming.

It sucks.  But it is what it is.  I've been paying the monthly for about 2 years now in hopes of cross texture painting finally arriving so I could cash out to a perpetual license.   That's not even going to be an option in the near future, so why bother?

At least Substance's pricing is affordable.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7