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.

Topics - Cpt.Sloth1992

Pages: [1]
Substance Integrations - UE4 - Fatal error on UE4 Startup
 on: November 08, 2020, 12:56:06 am 
Since the latest Plugin Update I get the following Error when ever I try to open my UnrealEngine 4.25 Project:
"Fatal error: [File:D:/Build/++UE4/Sync/Engine/Source/Runtime/CoreUObject/Private/UObject/LinkerLoad.cpp] [Line: 3899] SubstanceTexture2D /Game/Textures/Substance/1/UE4_Plugin_INST2_basecolor.UE4_Plugin_INST2_basecolor: Serial size mismatch: Got 208, Expected 204

UE4Editor_SubstanceCore!USubstanceGraphInstance::GraphRequiresUpdate() [D:\Build\++Portal+Promotion\Sync\LocalBuilds\PluginTemp\HostProject\Plugins\Substance\Source\SubstanceCore\Private\SubstanceGraphInstance.cpp:226]
UE4Editor_SubstanceCore!Substance::Helpers::SubstancesRequireUpdate() [D:\Build\++Portal+Promotion\Sync\LocalBuilds\PluginTemp\HostProject\Plugins\Substance\Source\SubstanceCore\Private\SubstanceCoreHelpers.cpp:3398]
UE4Editor_SubstanceEditor!FSubstanceEditorModule::RebuildAlert() [D:\Build\++Portal+Promotion\Sync\LocalBuilds\PluginTemp\HostProject\Plugins\Substance\Source\SubstanceEditor\Private\SubstanceEditorModule.cpp:122]
UE4Editor_SubstanceEditor!TBaseStaticDelegateInstance<void __cdecl(FString const &,bool)>::ExecuteIfSafe() [D:\RocketSync\4.25.0-13144385+++UE4+Release-4.25\Working\Engine\Source\Runtime\Core\Public\Delegates\DelegateInstancesImpl.h:859]

I´ve recently setup a new library of sbsar files, using Symbolic Links to be able to have all graphs in one location on an external harddrive instead of having multiple copies of the same graph for the Painter Shelf and for Designers Library.

This works great with SP but I now noticed that SD does not seem to recognize any files that are placed in its Library folder via SymLinks. If I change the library-folder url to the real location of the file, it is found by SD and everything works again.

Doing this for every file I want to add to my SD Library would be an insane amount of work and since some files are in the same folder as files that I don´t want to add to SD, this would also require splitting up those folders and breaking many of the symlinks that already work with painter.

Is this expected and/or intended design or a bug that might be fixed in one of the next updates?

Content - Substance Source - Negative Download Points
 on: January 13, 2019, 04:36:08 am 
I noticed, that even though I didn´t have any Substance Source related subscription in quite a while, my download credits changed. Into the negative, that is.
I got -30 Points now (was not the case in early december) and can not download any of the free files.
Could you please reset my counter to 0?

Hi, I currently own perpetual licenses for SD and SP with expirered maintenance and am thinking about upgrading my licenses. I just got a few questions about the total cost:

If I were to buy license upgrades directly I would get 1 year maintenance for just
     50$ (SP)
  + 50$ (SD)

and after the new maintenance expires in 1 year, my perpetual licenses would remain on the latest version of that date and NOT revert back to the version that was up-to-date when I initially extended the maintenance, correct?

If I were to use the Subscrition method and turn it into perpetual licenses after the 1 year, that would cost me

     159$ (1 year updates + 360 Source DLs)
     75$ (SD perpetual)    <--Could the upgrade cost in 1 year be 50$ again AND be used on a live Sub that was bought
    +75$ (SP perpetual)         with this years discount?
     309$ or 259$

Does turning the subscription into perpetual licenses after 1 year include another year of maintenance, making it equivalent to buying 4 maintenance extensions + Source DLs which would otherwise cost

       50$ (SP)
       50$ (SP year 2)      <-- again, can the discount be used 2 years in a row?
       50$ (SD)
    + 50$ (SD year 2)
      200$ or 250$ (without 2. discount)

In short, please answer these questions:

1. Do perpetual licenses with extended maintenance retain the latest maintenance covered version after the extension expires or do they revert to pre-maintenance versions?

2. Does turning subscription licenses to perpetual licenses after 1 year include another year of maintenance or is it just the addition of the Substance Source Downloads that increases the price by 209$?

3. Are the calculations above correct or am I overlooking some additional cost?/Can the discount for upgrading licenses be used 2 years in a row?

Some very early WIP Screenshots of my entry. I´m going for a "spirit of the forest"-kind of design.

I wanted to turn some 4k maps into a substance for use in UE4, but encountered the following problem:

When I change the output size in the substance graph instance inside UE4 the resulting bitmap is scaled correctly but the content of the bitmap looks extremly blurry, about as sharp as a 256 texture that was just upscaled to 4 k.

The bitmaps used in the substance are all 4k, and when viewed inside of SD, setting the output size to 4k results in an output as sharp as the input bitmap.

I also testet this with substances that don´t have an Input bitmap and they recalculate their content correctly inside UE4.

This happens when using the CPU and GPU engine.

I would guess that this is caused by the UE4 plugin not correctly applying the output resolution to Input nodes.
Maybe it uses the given resolution for the output files size, but does not rescale the input bitmaps themselfs, which results in their 256x256 versions beeing dragged up to the given output resolution.

I attached a screenshot of the Graph, which is pretty much just the input bitmap + Scaling, Tiling and some color tweaking and a screenshot of the Graph and Input Node settings.

I am confused as to which way is the best to bake normal maps form a high poly model with the latest version of SP.
I used to get great results by splitting the UVs at hard edges and then giving different smoothing groups to each UV island. How ever, as of 2.5 every combination of smoothing groups and UV seams results in some form of artifact.

I made a simple test object so check how the normal baking behaves in 2.5.1 and here are my results:
(note that there are no errors in the low or high poly model and all maps were baked with default settings + Bake by Name on)

In order: 1. UV seams at hard edges and each UV island has its own smoothing group.
               2. Only minimal UV seams and each UV island has its own smoothing group.
               3. UV seams at hard edges and the mesh has only one smoothing group.
               4. Only minimal UV seams the mesh has only one smoothing group.

Each of these combinations results in different degrees of artifacts, but each of them has one.

          - 1. and especially 2. have visible seams in the normal map at every edge > 20°

          - 3. and 4. have less seam artifacts but result in normal maps that try to compensate the fact that the model only has                   1 smoothing group which results in a strange look when used in Unreal Engine 4.

On the last image, you can see the tops of the test objects. Note that the 3. and 4. model with only one smoothing group have a very "bent" normal on the flat top end of the model while the 1. and 2. produce a very clear seam artifact.

What I want to know is the following:

What is the recommended way of setting up a model in 3ds max for SP?

- One smoothing group total or one per hard edged area?

- Do the UV seams have to strictly match the Smoothing groups or can the two be used independently of each other?

- Can UV islands ignore hard edges if it results in a better, less stretched and easier to work with UV Layout or do they have to have seams at any slightly harder edge, even if it breaks the model into 1000 UV islands?

While testing a new material today, I noticed that if I add a Fill-effect to any layer mask and then drag a material into the greyscale slot, SP always uses the basecolor output of the material as a mask, no matter what I selected as an output of the Fill-effect.

I was able to reproduce this with multiple materials including default ones. Here is a screenshot of the layer with the fill effect mask. Note that the output is set to height, but the mask uses the basecolor.

I noticed that some of the default grunge maps start having artifacts that look similar to those that you get when you use a 8 bit hight map (see attachments) when I use a high resolution like 4096x4096. They are even slightly visible in 2048x2048.
I´ve noticed these artifacts on the following grunge maps: 01, 03, 14 and 15.
This is the case in Designer as well as in Painter. Is there a setting I´m missing or are they supposed to look like this?
I did a clean reinstall of Designer and the new Grunge Maps have the same kind of terrace-effect.

Pages: [1]