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 - wjbarber82

Pages: [1]
Thanks Bud, that article is great actually. I think it'll answer any remaining questions I have.

Thanks a lot for your help.


Hey, thanks for getting back to me.

My concern is that in some cases, there appears to be a lot going on in the spec maps. I have to assume that the artist did that for a reason? Is it possible for someone using the specular workflow to rely heavily on the spec map rather than the gloss for a lot things? Therefor wouldn't removing it lose a lot of the 'magic' of the material?

Hi there,

I've been doing some research on the differences between Specular and Metalness and I have a good understanding now of their pros and cons.

My question; In general are the gloss maps from a specular workflow generally interchangeable/sufficient as a roughness map (after inversion) for a metalness workflow or does the missing specular/reflection map contain too much needed information? Is it a case of 'depends on the artist that made the maps' or a more generalised thing?

Would I be able to take a bunch of materials made in the specular workflow and use them in a metalness one by just ditching the specular map and inverting the gloss map? (Obviously speaking dielectric mats, not metallic).

Thanks for any insight you may have.

Hi there,

Apologies if this is in the wrong catagory, wasn't sure or not. Anyway, I've recently finished a PBR shader group in Blender designed specifically for use with the exports from Substance Painter (Metallic/Roughness workflow currently). I am looking to put the nodeGroup up on BlenderMarket but want to avoid any issues relating to copyright ofc. Basically looking for what is and is not allowed in relation to the name substance painter. Can I call the shader 'Substance Painter Shader, or Painter2Blender or something along those lines?

Thanks in advance.

Pages: [1]