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 - michael_11

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 48
Substances that have a OpenGL normal format by default will display incorrectly though.

This sounds like a bug... is will this be changed in a future release?

not a bug -  you have to make sure, not to mix open gl and dx resources. the only difference between the two is the green channel (flipped) - so if you have different formats (for whatever reason), just flip the green channel of your open gl normal map and it is ready to be used in a dx project

how about the material IDs? Are they set to 1 for the entire geometry?

my first guess would be, that your models don´t line up

I always import my lowpoly into ZBrush as a guide, and to check, if my highpoly and lowpoly are matching.

yes, the normals are flipped

you will get there eventually...

did you take the time to follow an in depth tutorial (like this course before tackling your own projects?

try to reduce the distance in the bake settings


I did a quick test (creating an environment map in designer), and it is working for me, including spec/glossiness

set substance graph to 32 bit
use panorama shape node
export as exr, 32bit

hope this helps

Nope, it doesn't work.

I created an environment map in designer, and it worked

another option is to duplicate your model and rotate it (as a workaround)

if you have substance designer available, you could build yourself a custom environment note to address this issue.

I agree, that this is a bit of an annoyance - it would be cool, if we would be able to rotate the environment in both axis or add custom lights

the red dotted line between your two nodes indicate, that one is a grayscale, the other one a colour node. just put a gradient node (maps grayscale values to colour values) between them and you´re sorted.

As for the UV layout, I'm still relatively new to mapping and layout efficiency. Could you guys clarify on how it could be better? If it's because of the large space around the shells on the right, I kept the shells at that size in order to keep a uniform texel density with the other shells. I also have them all under one shader so that in Substance, I can have everything textured and exported under one set. I would gladly accept constructive criticism on anything here.

if you have separate smoothing groups/hard edges, you have to split the UV shells and move them apart (add padding between them).
more info on this topic here:, esp

a word about texel density: My rule of thumb is, that I start the UV layout with consistent texel density and then fill the empty space by making the UV shells of the smaller parts bigger. Usually resolution issues are more obvious on smaller parts, that´s why I do it like this.
Needless to say, that with your way of modeling the blade, you waste tons of texture space. I would just mesh that flat part in or alternatively model that part flat without the indent (the indent could be in the higpoly only). Then you might even be able to get away with a rectangular (half sized) texture.

so much texture space wasted

also you have to split and pad your UVs along hard edges

troubleshooting advice: triangulate your mesh before exporting and see what it looks like. Maybe you are able to find vertices, which have to be welded/removed?

looking at your screenshots, it almost looks like there are two blade geometries (?)

blind guess, that this is because the curvature map in the Painter baker is generated from the normal map, so it is not continuous across UV shell borders

that´s why I bake my "curvature map from mesh" in designer and then use it in painter

it is a strange workaround, given painter uses curvature so heavily - but I am confident, the curvature from mesh baker will be added to painter hopefully soon :)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 48