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 - o.chabrand89

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
2 years later- did this actually happen to get fixed? Am I missing a menu option somewhere? Using LUTs for the first time in our Painter pipeline and this issue has come up.

Assign single material to your model before exporting it into Painter. Then you have single texture space and it all exports as one image. You may even be able to rescue the work done by saving smart materials before making a new project and importing those into the new model with masks.

Nice try to dodge the real issue, what if my 3D app doesn't support UDIMs or if ID maps are not an options?
What if I want a single texture space for all of my model? when did that become so radical of a request?
And what about FBX or glTF with texture export?
The issue is Painter CANNOT export a mesh with the texture info that you see in its 2D UV view, you can't even export what you see.

Sorry, I must be missing something. But I did not suggest you have to use UDIMS or ID maps. But my questions is why can't you make your model use a single texture space already? Painter is certainly capable of that. I always set up my models so that the texture set uses all the UV space. So I never do any manual stitching, and that's not in UDIM models.
You said (I think in a different post) that you have 20 texture sets per UV tile... My question is why do you need to do this?  is it just a visibility issue- so you can hide and unhide parts of the mesh?
Like I mentioned before, if you export your model with a single material assigned then it will all go into a single texture set. If you have multiple texture sets per model, but all are in UV space 0,1 Then you can assign a material for every desired texture image (UV space 0,1). This way Painter will export the full texture space with everything in it.
You really don't have to separate meshes per material in Painter (if that's what you are doing) since using PBR you are perfectly capable of texturing a whole range of materials (leather, metal, etc) using the same maps and same shader.
So if you are separating your metals into one texture set, and your leathers into another (even though they share UV space 0,1) well I am trying to tell you you don't have to. Separating materials in Painter is as simple as putting them in their own folder.
It just sounds like a classic mistake I see people do all the time which is just not setting up your mesh to work with painter properly when importing into Painter. Most people just grab whatever mesh and throw it into painter expecting it to be fine but in reality, there is some setup required for complicated models. Especially how you assign materials in your mesh, Painter will read these tags and assign a texture set per material. Sometimes you don't actually want this. So you just assign a single material or a few temporary materials for every desired texture space.

This is so frustrating, first there is still no way to merge all the different sets into one at export, and to make matters worse all the mesh export options in Painter (dae, obj and gltf which is broken) export only the mesh with no texture info.
How is this logic in a painting app?
Now I have to go to Photoshop and import the UV layout and try to stitch all the different sets for each map.
Then go to my DCC to link all the maps together with the mesh.
Those are things that could easily be done in Painter (either in FBX or glTF) and simple script for sets merge, you should have thought about that before implementing cutting edge stuff like the quasi useless physics painter... very basic stuff missing.

Why are you not simply making it so that each uv set in painter already uses (and exports) the full map? I understand if you are NOT working with UDIM workflow you may want to export a mesh with materials assigned (thus breaking up your model in many UVSets) but if you are merging the textures into a single UV space that seems redundant. Why not just assign a material per uv set (uv tile, or basically each full image output space, or just a single material for the whole model basically)
You can bake material IDs using a separate "high res" mesh with the different materials in them and bake  from that.
It sounds like your issue could be resolved not by painter exporting a different mesh but by you importing the mesh differently into painter

The weird thing about this is that the lines aren’t showing up where the UV’s seams are. I placed the UV’s seams myself in nice clean spots on the back of the mesh (this is the front) so it’s strange that unchecking UV seams fixes it, since the seams aren’t actually causing the issue. And this is a game mesh.

Hmm you can try having a look at your mesh itself? hard edges can give weird bugs like this too. Possibly running a mesh cleanup on maya to look for unconnected faces.
 I would soften all edges (in maya or such) and only harden the edges that are your UV shell seams. That seems to be a trick people like doing for game res stuff.

Also make sure your export retains normal information too

it looks to me like its achievable in substance painter for sure, you could even make custom smart masks to quickly generate a bunch of assets that look like that.
Some of them kinda look like a mix of cavity (curvature) map and the thickness map and sort of an inverted AO map (which painter can bake) .
You'd have to do a lot of tweaking per asset to get it just right  (for example picture with car where engine and wheels are brighter would require custom painting in those areas)
But you could use the baked maps to do a lot of the work for you for sure. Your painting might just be general soft brush on the areas that are supposed to have heat and then your smart masks will do most of the detailing for you.
Good luck!

it says "cannot open" this file.
Does that file still exist? is it corrupted? try changing it to jpeg or something more basic

try tiling from the UV tile section (top of the substance properties panel) as well as the procedural tiling slider

yeah its possible it has to do with your uv map. If all those lines are where your seams are at I would really suggest having another go at a cleaner UV unwrap if possible.
Also I'm just guessing based on your geo, but if you pan on subdiving this mesh on rendertime (not game-res) you can try exporting an already subdivided and smoothed mesh to Painter (make sure uvs smooth and subdivide too) as it will make baking much nicer (and the result will actually closer to your render mesh)

Hmm that's too bad. I can see why it would be a complex color blending issue. I hope this gets some attention sometime as it makes material seam fixing rather difficult!
I suppose I can make a white mask and fade off the edges.

Thanks for the quick response!

When using the projection brush, and applying a material to it (SBS), the blending on my normal map is all messed up.

I want the normal map projection to replace the normal map underneath. If my layer blending is set to "normal combine" things look fine, however changing it to anything else, in particular to "normal" since thats the behaviour I want,  the edges of the projection (the "fading off" bits of my soft brush)  look all wrong!
Instead of blending softly into the background layer, they seem to blend into "flat" normal map color (the blueish neutral color)  and then suddenly (and jarringly) jump to the background normal map layer (leaving a messy looking seam)

incorrect blending in normal map

correct blending in base color

using substance painter 2019.2.0

system specs
Processor   Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz, 4001 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s)

Installed Physical Memory (RAM)   32.0 GB

Name   NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
Driver Version

Recently tried the Adobe Capture app on mobile, and it was kinda cool. However, the material capture feature is very amateurish and low quality, and it got my thinking how nice it would be to be able to capture using that app on your phone and then somehow sending it to Substance Alchemist to get some real work done.....  been wondering what kind of adobe/substance integrations we will get in the future and I thought something like this would be cool!

When you say it like that, an "archive all" feature does sound really handy!

What exactly does this mean? my workplace has perpetual licenses to Painter and Designer, so we can't try Alchemist just yet. But in your most recent video, you say Alchemist is now "open to everyone" to try or something like that. Can my studio download  Alchemist now? is it still tied to subscription-only?
Also, I  really hope in the future you allow a separate permanent license option for Alchemist since it's hard to convince my studio to get rental licenses and if alchemist is a subscription-only exclusive it would be a real shame!

that would make the painter file really heavy, and its already very very heavy. Deleting files that you are still using is just bad idea in general.....

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15