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 - Colkaih

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
It seems plausible that both answers are yes, but Nicolas clear statement suggested (to me) something different.
I read that as saying, "at present, with it being in Beta, it would not be included", rather than suggesting it would never be included. Speaking as an ex-developer, that seems logical to me, even though I would of loved it to be included at present, technically, it isn't yet "out there".

First is what is the point of making a high mesh and low mesh.
To add to what Wes said, you don't even need a high res mesh, just "a mesh", so depending on what you are doing, don't think you need to say, make a high res version of a low poly asset. As I use SP simply for texturing my models I make in Blender, I just export the mesh and leave it at that.

What reason would there be for reupdated the importing the meshes later on as mention in the tutorial video?
For me, I do that A) when if make a mistake and export something only to discover an issue later (Doh!)  Or B) When I decide I want to add geometry to the model, or change the UV layout for some reason, or both. A common thing is finding you've not paid attention to overlapping UVs or some such. SP is awesome here, you can just rebake the maps, leaving all the layers alone. The only issue you have is if you have any "painted" layers, as these may need re-doing of you've latered your UV layout.

Do you need to use id if you don’t have a high mesh
You don't need to, but by the same token, I recommend it as a way of controlling textures. I have a video where I use Blender and SP together, to keep the number of actual materials down, (which become texture sets within SP), as I know I am texturing in SP, I create an ID mask, so I bundle geometry together, with an Id mask, (in Blender, this is built from the vertex colour map). In SP, I then use this to isolate parts of the textureset with masks to create different textures within a single textureset.
Again though, SP means you can do it this way, or just create a mask based on UV islands or polygons to isolate things, I personally just find an ID mask easier to work with. Though I may incorporate UV poly masks as sub-sets of an ID mask.
Here's a link to part 1 of the tutorial of Blender2 substance, it has 3 parts in total:

Not yet I'd imagine, simply as it's still Beta, but I'd imagine once it's officially released it will be available as Perpetual as all the other software is. IMHO it made sense to keep the Beta to the Source subscription as it's easy to administrate.

Livelink may be a paid product, but it works wonderfully with Blender, not sbsar of course as Blender uses PBR materials, but the handling of the materials and being able to update in one click is a boon. The works for 2.80 looks even better, so IMHO it's well worth the outlay.

Ahh well, I guess that saves me $49 anyway as I already have Painter 2019.1.3  Maybe see in 12 months if I have enough in the bank to afford an upgrade. >> Sadness <<  :(

Due to a change of circumstances, I am not going to be able to continue my subscription to source. When I look at the cancellation it does say I am eligible to buy the $49 perpetual license for the whole suite. However, with Alchemist still being in beta, I am wondering if that is included or not in the deal. As I already own a perpetual copy of Painter, it's not worth it if I only get designer, which I hardly ever use.

Can someone clarify please?

To be honest, my gut instinct is, go on substance source, find something similar and then download the SBS and reverse engineer it so you can see what each bit does. Then change things and see the effect, so you get to understand the parameters of the nodes.

I have finally got around to doing a tutorial, in 3 parts, on the whole process I went through here.




Heh. *Mostly* confusing.

I understand the concept of seams but I really don't know when I need to *make* an edge a seam. I haven't done it.

The bit about joining textures--I can take two textures and join them in GIMP or whatever--but I suspect that's not what you're talking about there, is it?

Making a seam is easy, select an edge where you want the "cut" to appear, (it helps to think of unfolding it like paper), then CTRL+E pulls up the edge menu, select "mark seam". you can shift+click or ctrl+click to select multiple edges to mark as seams.

No, what I did was, in edit mode, select the "yellow" material, go into vertext paint, assign it a colour, switch back to edit mode, deselect the yellow, select the "tank" material, go into vertex paint, assign that a different colour. This ensures both are distinct in SP using an ID map, (which is created based on the vertex colours in Blender).
I then selected both those materials and assigned them to "yellow" and renamed that "yellow and tank". In object mode, I deleted the, now unused, "tank" material. In edit mode then, I an make better use of the UV map space, rather than having 2 textures which are mainly empty.

That's great! Can I ask what specifically you did to the UV Maps?

Also--what do you mean by "grouped the materials"?
Basically, I just built the UV Maps from scratch, setting seams where I felt there was a suitable compromise between area and making maximum use of the UV space. Some areas could be done in one bit, but I broke them up a I felt it would waste a lot of UV space. It's a laborious task, but if you want semi-decent UVMaps, it's the best way. Smart Project can get a bit messy.

When I say "group" the materials, that's a bit of a false statement, I joined two materials together, but before I did, I used vertex paint to set them to different colours so in SP, I could use an ID map to isolate them. That allowed me to combine them to again make better use of UV space, so they could share a texture map. In hindsight, I would of set them as having their own vertex groups in Blender as well. Alas, Blender doesn't allow you to select vertices by vertex pain colour, (it would be a very useful feature).

If what I just said sounds confusing, let me know and I'll try and do a video on the whole process.

I re-did the UVMaps, I also grouped a couple of materials together to make more use of the maps.
Here's an FBX:
This is the blend file I used to export the above:

This is a blend file following working in SP and linking up the textures via live link to show how a result may look:

Finally, a snapshot of SP as I was texturing:

I pulled your object into Blender and initially was rather confused as I couldn't get a decent UVmap. Then I realised your "tube was in fact multiple objects, rather than one actual tube, the "end pieces" of each meant you were getting a ton of objects instead of one nice tube. Dunno if this is intentional or not. Is this a mesh you created yourself? Would it be ok for me to revise it and map it based on how I would approach it?

If you've baked your textures in Blender, instead of building htat texture in SP, you need to import the map. Or bake the maps then replace the required ones. In honesty, if you've textured and baked everything in Blender, not sure why you'd pull it into SP.
The workflow I use is model, uvmap, assign material names, (just simple 'placeholder' materials), use vertex paint to assign an ID map if I want one, then export. I work in SP and then bake my textures out to pull into Blender. If you have the "live link" addon by Hedgehog Labs, (hhconnect in Blender), you can work in SP and update Blender on the fly if you want to see the object within a scene.

My first instinct is to say check the margin on your UV map, just wonder if you are getting bleed-over.

Indeed, activate "show normals" within the blender interface, if the blue lines are pointing inwars, that shows they are not right. Alternatively, go into edit mode and hit CTRL+N to normalize them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11