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 - JamesArndt

Pages: [1]
It's not as if Adobe couldn't see where this workflow was headed for several industries that utilize texturing. We could all see several years ago that texturing was moving away from the "flat" workflow in Photoshop and moving to this kind of material and texture generation. Photoshop ends up being the last spot in the pipeline, just for corrections and final touches. It makes sense that they would want to take control of where the industry was heading and have authority over that. An acquisition of Allegorithmic makes sense from a smart business perspective. It will help Adobe stay relevant in these specific industries. From a user's perspective, this is not a good move, not by a long shot. Adobe has no history of giving it's users control and flexibility in licensing or usage, they have a history of exerting control over the entire process. I can't speak for everyone, but for myself, Creative Cloud is insidious and strips away the fine control I try to have over my software and hardware. Adobe isn't about giving freedom or control to the users, it's about exerting it's will ON its users. So why would anyone of sound mind think this announcement would be welcomed and congratulated. It isn't celebrated and that's clear by 30+ pages of direct user feedback.

My hope is some new company steps up and creates something new, something that represents what Allegorithmic once did, and something that puts control back into the user's hands and out of the hands of a monolithic corporation. I just can't see how Allegorithmic didn't have faith in themselves? How they couldn't see their own value far above and beyond a corporation such as Adobe? You guys were and are disrupting several industries, creating new tech with procedural generation that didn't have to look...procedural. You were very focused on your users and offered flexible licensing plans, showing you set each user and their needs as a priority. You were setting an industry standard and moving PBR forward. I can't believe, after what you've accomplished so far, that your engineers could not have exceeded and improved what you've already built. Created and grown something to stand alongside Adobe products....not be assimilated by them. To be generically thrown into some Adobe suite of tools. You guys could have made a better choice, but that's my own opinion.

Sorry to necro this thread, but I cannot find if this is a feature in the latest versions of Painter? I can't find it and it doesn't appear the baked lighting is taking my height or normals into consideration. Is this feature aspect of the baked lighting planned?

For some reason my Wacom pen does not want to tumble in the Substance Painter viewport. It will do it for a split second and then stop. It seems to keep defaulting to zooming. Anyone know why this is occurring? My Wacom pen and buttons are set to match the same controls my mouse buttons would use for tumbling.

I'm in Substance 2018.2 and my pen pressure is not working for either Size or Flow on a brush. I'm using a smaller Wacom tablet.

Luckily I have none of the other software there that could conflict. So you believe this could be a video driver issue? I am always very cautious when upgrading or downgrading nVidia drivers as new ones can be unstable and produce issues in all of my 3D software across the board. So this older driver is proven and known to be stable across most 3D applications?

I went and found the log file text document. Hopefully this will give some insight into what's going on or wrong. Thank you for your help.

I found myself coming back to this issue again today. I have attempted to do exactly what you've done in your screengrab and description there, but I cannot mask out the height information. Any guidance on what I'm doing wrong?

Here is a video showing my steps:

So sounds like Substance Painter might be a no-go for most laptops?

Yeah this is not working for me. I see in the video he has a simple fill layer with nothing in it, but mine has a material in the fill layer. It's not helpful to put in any other detail into the mask other than the areas I want to mask out. What is the official guidance on tackling this problem? My mask is not respecting my black brush strokes to mask out height from a material in a fill layer.

I made a very short video of my problem. I'm using one of the provided materials to give me that diamond pattern. It has a mask on the fill layer. The polygon fill tools work to mask things just fine, however when I attempt to hand paint pure black it has no effect on painting black to the mask. This is confusing the heck out of me.

Is there any way to preserve my layers on a standard texture export? The export there works with padding, but it exports only a single flattened texture map for each texture.

Okay that would be a very handy setting to have. Padding is pretty much a must have. For now I'm hacking around it by exporting a flattened "snapshot" with padding and putting that behind my layers.

I'm looking through the documentation and Google and turning up empty on an issue with Painter 2107.4.2. Might be somewhere in the software and I don't see it in the docs. So I'm using the Photoshop exporter and I see no setting for padding. When it comes into Photoshop none of the texture work has padding applied. I was wondering where that might be in the Photoshop export settings?

Pages: [1]