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 - justaviking

Pages: 1 ... 133 134 [135] 136 137
This is mostly off-topic from my quest to make a specific pattern, which can be found here:

>>> NEW <<<
I posted some examples in a follow-on thread:
>>> END OF NEW <<<

This is not exactly related to the substance I'm creating, but I was watching a great tutorial during lunch.  It's a great tutorial, and I like the way he shows things step-by-stop.  But when he used the "Add Sub" blend mode, I realized I have no ideal how it actually works.

Watch from 17:00-18:15... especially at 18:04-18:15.

He's combining the top-half of one input and the bottom-half of another input.

I looked at the documentation, but it's not helping me much.  Scroll down to "Add Sub."

Why does the white half display the top-half, and why does the black half display the bottom half of the bottom input?

Maybe I need to play with some gray inputs instead of just black and white, and maybe then I will understand.  But I was watching this tutorial during lunch, got to that point, looked at the documentation, and have been puzzling over it ever since.

Can anyone explain this in words?  (and/or pictures)

...create an sbs with the outputs you want...

Yes, and that changed significantly with the latest release.

One of the first tutorials I tried to follow started with adding a channel, but it was an SD4 tutorial and I was on SD5.  I think he's looking for that step.

Would the "Blur" node do the job?

Assuming it's a static distortion of an image.
I'm also assuming the blur map (or whatever it's called) would be hand-crafted based on the particular painting, not a random or noise pattern.

UPDATE:  I think "Warp Node" is the one I was thinking of.

I think the post Fabian linked to missed the mark.  Theiamania is asking how to accomplish Step 1 in that list.

I sounded to me like he's looking for "Add Node - Output" or something closer to that.  THEN he can save a template.  I'm not at home, so I can't make any screenshots right now.

Yeah, I guess that was clear in your question.  I let an assumption of your question get in the way.  I should have read your post a second time and posted more slowly.  Sorry about that.

You were hoping for an INTEGER value, I presume.

Something like this???
- Get pixel (7,9)
- Then find one on each side of it (6,9) and (8,9)
- Average the neighbors, and use the result to update pixel (7,9)

Hopefully I understand the question.  Too bad I don't know the answer (yet).

I managed to take a quick peek.  Very elegant.

I was picturing different sized circles and all sorts of "geometric" things, which is the downside of the years I spent with engineering design tools.  I was sure there was a much more elegant approach.  Slowly and eventually I will learn to think in ways that are in sync with SD sooner and more often.

I'm feeling good that I was able to quickly understand what you did.  That's progress too.  I have no illusions (or desires) of becoming a Substance Designer master, but I do hope to at least become adequate.

Thanks again.

Wow, that was quick!  Thanks, Nicolas.   :)

I can't wait to check it out.  I have other commitments to take care of after work today, but hopefully I'll get a few minutes late this evening.  The attached .sbs file is much appreciated.

This is a follow-on to

To let you know I'm not totally helpless, I do plan to include a post of something that (gasp!) I figured out myself.  But meanwhile, I will post something I can write about during my lunch break without requiring access to Substance Designer.


Look at the attached picture.
I made it in MSPaint (sorry), but it will suffice for now.

How would you suggest creating the "bent line" in Substance Designer without resorting to an SVG file or bitmap image?

Just the white line.

I would like to do it "procedurally" (via nodes) as much as possible.  The place I'm stuck on is where the line bends.  I might be able to do it with about 200 nodes because I'd do a very poor job of it.

Would that even be appropriate?  Practical?

Some guidance, direction, and a few hints would be greatly appreciated.  At least I'd be struggling in the right direction.  I'm not asking for a complete tutorial or set of step-by-step instructions (though I wouldn't turn them down).


Eventually I will create a sort of "weave" as shown by the red and green lines.  I believe I figured that out.  But I did it using lines drawn in an SVG file.  Now I'd like to replace them with "generated" lines.

Perhaps when I'm done, this will turn in the pseudo-tutorial for other newbies.

I'm still new to the Allegorithmic forum, and don't know the culture here very well yet.  It seems like a friendly place.  If I start abusing it or becoming too much of a pest, please (kindly) let me know.  I don't intend to use the nice people here as a replacement for help files, YouTube tutorials, or my own struggles and discovery process, but sometimes you can't replace asking questions to more experienced people.  I do look forward to becoming more self-sufficient and repaying the favors here someday.

I'm getting a little bit of "overlap" (bleed) from the edges, as if I scaled the X axis slightly.  Maybe I did it by accident, I wouldn't know now since the values keep going back to 100%.  I will do it over again to check on that, but want to get this reply posted first.

I did it again, using numeric inputs (no manual stretching of the box in the display window).  I used 500% (5x) on the first one, and 20% (1/5 x) on the second.  I did not touch the horizontal values.

I still see what appears to be some overlap, but I think it's just a display artifact for that node.  The actual output on the 3D rounded cube looks fine.

You can see the little vertical strips on the left and right sides, circled.  But they're not visible in the 3D viewport.  I think it's a minor display bug in the "Transform 2D node display window."

>>> See first picture <<<

It's as if it's ever-so-slightly scaled down a bit extra in width, such as 99%, but I didn't touch that value (and the 3D window looks clean).

To test further, I scaled the Width 98%, and the stray "overlap" is more visible in the Transform window, and now it also shows up in the 3D view, as it should.

>>> See second picture <<<

Yup, I think I found a teeny-tiny bug.

@Artzfx - Oh my, you have revealed another set of options for me to experiment with.  I see you started with a "rectangular" bitmap, which makes sense of course.  I added a little junky SVG graphic from within SD, since eventually I hope to use something procedural.  I wonder how your technique would work then. 

What would you do if you started with a square canvas, but wanted to use just one strip across it?  As I said, something to experiment with.  Thanks again.

@everyone...  This does bring me back to my "complaint" about documentation, but hopefully someone can identify a source of which I was simply unaware.  Where would the behavior and interaction of these settings be documented?

Here is what I did... (my interpretation of what Flaw_bil666 said)...  See the pictures...

I did this both using the "free-form" stretching of the rectangle, and I also did it my typing in numbers in the "Stretch" value.  But, yeah, the numbers go back to 100%, so you don't really know how much you stretched it.

In the second 2D Transform node, I shrunk it back down, and moved the center.


The visual appearance of the first stretch (and second one too, for that matter) is really odd.  At least to me.  I get it, it's just really different and not what I would expect at first.

I'm getting a little bit of "overlap" (bleed) from the edges, as if I scaled the X axis slightly.  Maybe I did it by accident, I wouldn't know now since the values keep going back to 100%.  I will do it over again to check on that, but want to get this reply posted first.

You can do a simplified version what Maus did, since your old and new minimums are both zero.

Divide by 255, which gives you a 0-1 range, then multiply by 99 to give you the 0-99 scale.  Just use constants for "255" and "99."

Ah, I understand what you're saying.
At least I think I do.  I'll know for sure when I actually try it.  ;)
I look forward to experimenting with it tonight.

That is exactly the sort of tips I was hoping for.

I have been able to accomplish some tasks with what I'm sure is a ridiculously convoluted path through an inefficient number of nodes, and I'm not sure yet when I'm looking for something SD doesn't do (unlikely) or when it's me not being familiar enough with the tool (very likely).

I'll either post my successful results, or ask follow-up questions if needed.
Thanks!   :D


I am finally starting to learn Substance Designer, or at least trying to.

Wow, I really suck at this.  But I'm working on it.

I assume it will be best to use multiple threads so they will be specific to a particular topic and therefore hopefully be more useful to other people.

I have searched the Forum some.  If I miss posts that answer my question(s), please refer to them and accept my apologies.


I'm trying to create a custom woven pattern, like what you might see on a wicker chair.  To do this, I am challenging myself to be as procedural (node-based) as possible, rather than taking a picture and using Bitmap-to-Material, to force myself to learn SD's features.

I've watched a lot of tutorials, and as a noob I find myself constantly thinking, "I saw something like this in one of the last dozen videos, but which one?"  And trying remember which node has which feature is being a challenge.  Figuring out little things like, "What's the difference between Tiles and Bricks?" can take some experimentation.


Is there some better documentation I'm missing somewhere?  When I go to the documentation page, I can open SD 5 documentation, but when I SEARCH for something I get results for SD4 and SD3, and many times that of little help as the interface and features have changed.

Is there something that actually explains the features and controls of the nodes in a useful way without having to search for a tutorial and then watch for 20 minutes to find the information you're looking for?

For example, "This node takes the source image and performs any combination of 2D transformations on it, including simple translations, rotations and scaling" doesn't really tell me much about how to use it, or mention things like Mirror Vertical and Mirror Horizontal.

Anyway... on to today's question...


Suppose I have a free-form "wavy pattern", like some sort of swirly line or filigree going across the top of my image.  Then I want this repeated several times so I have, say, 10 "rows" of this pattern.

What's a good way to do that?

Should I somehow apply this as a texture to a tile?  I know how to adjust the tile generator to create "rows" that go all the way across.

For example, if I wanted the pattern in the attached picture to be repeated several times as a background for another image or pattern that would overlay 5 or 6 rows of the background.

See the attached picture to help show what I'm talking about.  What's the best way to duplicate the horizontal strip before overlaying the front image?

I'm finding smudges, grunge, and noises are easier that specific geometric results, at least for me.  I told you I'm a noob.  This takes me 30 seconds in MSPaint or GIMP, but I'm trying to avoid non-SD tools as much as possible, as I mentioned before, to force me to learn SD.

Thanks for the quick reply!   :)

Pages: 1 ... 133 134 [135] 136 137