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 - rosenand

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

TL;DR - see attached GIF. The UV offset slider doesn't cover the whole image.

I need to make a set of road paint arrow textures (each arrow on its own texture, no atlases here). I created a square image with several arrows for reference (seen in the shelf). I set it as a fill mask for the paint, scaled it so that one arrow is visible at a time, and hoped to conveniently move from one arrow to the next by moving the X offset slider. But because of the scale being lower than 1, the [-1..1] range of the offset slider doesn't cover the whole set of arrows.

I'm wondering if there's a reason for it to work like that. Wouldn't it make more sense if the offset slider covered the whole fill image, no matter the scale?

Edit - additional info:

the reference image with arrows is square
the texture set is 256x1024
the UV of the rectangle mesh covers the whole 0..1 UV space

Hello again :)

So this may technically be the same case as my "updating an alpha resource" example above, but I'd like to mention it anyway, because maybe I'm just doing something wrong, and there already is a workaround...

What I'm talking about is the Designer -> Painter pipeline. I'm working on a filter in SD and testing it in some of my SP projects. I have both programs open, switching constantly between them, tweaking stuff. Every time I modify my filter and export an sbsar, I have to close Painter and open it again, because otherwise the sbsar doesn't update in the shelf.

Is this how it has to be at the moment? Thanks :)

Content - Substance Source - Re: The Path to Substance Source
 on: November 09, 2016, 05:25:12 pm 
No, I think rent-to-own is still a thing.

To obtain a definitive license, you will have to complete 8 monthly payments for Substance Painter and Substance Designer, and 5 monthly payments for Substance B2M, and 16 monthly payments for Substance Pack.

(From FAQ)

So sorry for the confusion I caused with the "2 years" example. But it's still $1600 vs $1000 for them. Or $800 vs $600 if you need Painter only. But then again, it's 240 Source credits (8x30) vs 60 credits for Painter paid upfront. 240 for $800, or 60 for $600. Yeah, maybe it's not that fair. I'm not sure what to think anymore.

Content - Substance Source - Re: The Path to Substance Source
 on: November 09, 2016, 02:30:23 pm 
I also don't understand the demanding attitude of some people, except maybe for those who bought first versions of the software and now get nothing, but still, they never paid for Source, so why should they, or anybody, get a new product/service that they never paid for? Getting 180 credits is pretty generous, I think.

And to the person who said that it should be more advantageous for Allegorithmic if people paid the full price once, as opposed to paying monthly: do some simple math. In the "Pro" range, after 10 months it becomes more profitable (for Allegorithmic) if you pay monthly. After 2 years, for example, they get $2400, as opposed to $1000 if you pay once for the Pack. So of course they have the right to give Live customers more. And no, we're not Live subscrivers here at our studio. We bought the Packs, or individual software, depending on who needed what.

The only weird thing is that the guy who bought the software for us, has the licences (and so I presume the Source credits) at HIS account, even though I registered a separate Allegorithmic account with company e-mail. So we, actual artists, have no access to Source. But I hope our guy sorts this out with Allegorithmic via e-mail :)

Wait. So, after the shelf overhaul... you still can't delete a resource?  :o

I imported an alpha, and now I need to update it. I can understand the lack of "update" or "re-load" function, although it wouldn't be impossible to implement (either add the ability to LINK resources, like in Designer, or store source file path), but I can't even delete the alpha from within SP. I have to close SP and replace the file manually in the shelf folder...

Please tell me I'm wrong.

Haha, works like a charm! Thank you so much, Froyok.

I'll duplicate my YouTube comment, relating the 2.4 release video:

Noooo! I mean, I <3 you, Allegorithmic. This is a long awated update, and it shows you listen to your users. BUT. WHY, oh why, do you have to go to the settings window, to use the feature at 18:45? The "hide default resources" feature. It would be SO useful to have it as a little button on the shelf UI itself. Pleeeease :)

I'll just leave it here :)

(TL;DR: color burn doesn't work as expected, either)

+1. This may seem silly, but happens a lot, not only with the bake settings, but also with the export settings: I open the window, set the export folder, the preset, the texture sets to export and their resolution, then I remember or notice something in the project that I need to change (which requires me to close the window), and all the clicking goes to waste :)

Hello. In our project, in every FBX, apart from a model itself, we have a collision model, which is usually a box or a few boxes. Our 3D artists give them different materials, so that we can simply uncheck their texture set in SP and not worry about them.

The thing is, sometimes we have to bake AO ourselves, from the normal map (not from high poly). Even if I unhide the unnecessary texture set, bake only the texture set I need, and check "Match By Mesh Name" (model and collision box have different mesh names), the collision box affects AO on the model itself.

I think it didn't work like that before, and I know there were some export modifications in recent SP releases, so is that a bug perhaps? Or is this by design?

I'm trying to think of whether this is desired functionality. The typical situation, of course, would be no collision boxes, and all texture sets being just different parts of a model. Like car body, and car wheels, on different texture sets. Usually, we would want the wheels to affect the body AO and vice versa, I guess. But also, usually we would bake from high poly, and we'd have the option to check "Match By Mesh Name", so that the wheels would not affect the body, if we didn't want them to, am I right? So also, we should have this option when we're baking from normal map, with no high poly. Am I right, or am I missing something?

Thanks :)

Substance PainterSubstance Painter - Discussions - Re: Brush blending mode
 on: October 20, 2016, 10:10:02 pm 
Thanks. I accomplished more or less what I wanted with 3 layers, same color, but top two of those being in Linear Burn* mode, plus each had a different mask. This simulated successive paint strokes blending on top of each other. And it's the fill layer + mask workflow, which I always prefer over the paint layer workflow. But it would be nice to have the brush blending mode functionality as well, at some point in the future :)

*And yeah, it's worth noting that I had to use the Linear Burn mode to achieve something like Photoshop's Color Burn effect. SP's Color Burn doesn't work the same as in Photoshop. Designer's Color Burn node doesn't, either.

Substance PainterSubstance Painter - Discussions - Brush blending mode
 on: October 17, 2016, 06:57:47 pm 
Hello, is it possible to achieve an effect like in the image attached, within a single SP layer, building up with each stroke?

Like when you set the brush blending mode (as opposed to layer blending mode) in Photoshop? In this case it was Color Burn. Thanks.

It would be cool to have a master slider for controlling the intensity of normal generated from height. Like in the "Normal" and "Normal Sobel" nodes in SD.

Also, this:

Substance PainterSubstance Painter - Discussions - Re: I just want to say
 on: October 17, 2016, 03:39:19 pm 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6