Archived threads in /3/ - 3DCG - 91. page

I don't know about the industry perspective (still a student), but I can tell you substance painter is basically a shortcut of what photoshop does, with tools tailored specifically towards 3D texturing.

If you have a solid understanding of texturing, materials, maps, then you should be able to make a texture in photoshop. You might prefer to use substance because it's faster. Photoshop can still be useful for certain things you can't do in substance, and so is worth keeping in mind.

I'm told most of the industry uses either substance or quixel, with some preferring one side over the other. But learning how to texture in quixel shouldn't be hard if you know how to texture in substance, and vice versa.

>>543014
2 words;

Quixel Suite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugVuyCXjss

>>543031
did they seriously quote simon fuchs as "simon fox" lol

any tips when looking for a job and expectations?

>>542423
I literally made more at 16
Was it worth spending years of practice to make low wage

>>542438
he's probably eastern european

>>544919
Just use blender. It's free.

>>544921
they don't serve the same purpose

>>544919 autocad is superior, don't listen to him. I don't really understand your question, but try to work with a different object type, like mesh or surfaces?

>>544933

Not bad. When did you start using it?

>>544982
Yesterday

Substance Painter works in the same way that Photoshop does. And in the same way texturing is done in most programs, by creating layers. Understand the layering approach and you\ll be ok in any texturing program be it substance, quixel or whatever you want to use. It took me about a hour to get used to the program

>>541308
Don't stress yourself too much about it and listen to your inner voice. Slow it down, chill out and take your time.
If you push it too far it pushes back.
Repetition in small doses, while slowly feeding in new stuff, that's the way to go.

Watch the Painter related videos on their youtube channel. A couple of them per day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d819Y_-mLKo&list=PLB0wXHrWAmCx994Cb7iRFSmupYHFw5DTx

And then immediately use the new knowledge.
Spent an hour per day on this for a while and it becomes easy.

I was like you trapped in my comfort zone, the only way to get out of this is to push out into uncharted territory and keep doing it until you comfort zone becomes bigger.

SP isn't super complicated. It's PBR, you have albedo/spec/gloss maps, normal maps, some extras like transparency and whatnot (for glass). You can bake/use masks like AO, curvature, cavity, etc. You can paint directly on your model, or create selection masks based on faces, which is a big plus over Photoshop.

If you feel like you can't get satisfying results, there's basically two reasons: either your texturing knowledge isn't good enough, or your modeling knowledge isn't good enough. Likely a mix of both.

I would argue that being a good modeler is nowadays very important to making assets look good (a good part of asset complexity is determined by the low and high poly details), but texturing is gonna be more important to you if you wanna "learn" substance. And texturing means knowing things like basic properties of different materials, how to replicate their texture (bump/normal), their wear and damage, and so on.

Generally, the tutorials for Substance Painter aren't that good at that, I'm guessing because photorealistic shading/texturing isn't a skill that was invented with SP, but one that artists already had before (they just did their work in PS or other programs). So it doesn't "come" with Substance, it's just that people assume it does.

If you can't find good Substance tutorials, I would advise learning texturing and shaders from tutorials centered around photorealistic rendering (I personally learned it with Vray). Since the whole point of shading in renders *is* material properties, you should find tutorials that teach you exactly that instead of "hurr durr game assets let's skip the most important fundamentals".

Those are not layers, it is the hierarchy of your scene and its content, so objects. You want to join the different objects into one, you can do that by selecting your objects and pressing ctrl+j. But know that the object will still be made of several distinct parts. It may or may not be ok, following what you want.

WHATCH A GOOD DAMN TUTORIAL FOR FUCKS SAKE

WHATS EITH THESE RETARDS WHO DONT EVEN TRY TO LEARN THE BASICS FIRST.

>>544204
faggot stfu. I will physically beat the shit outta you kid.

>>543917
>smoothing-group experts
nigga, wat?
anyway, just add a chamfer modifier set to "unsmoothed edges", then a turbosmooth on top and you'll have your high-poly

File: smooth.png (822KB, 2843x2159px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 2843x2159px

>>543917

And here it is smoothed. My question is - can I use this same base-mesh as the LP for the bake or will it need a fresh retop?

Can a base mesh with a fuckload of complex smoothing groups be used in the lo-poly bake?

I'm not planning on doing a shitload to it in Zbrush...

>>543918

Yeah I know what I'm doing to get the smoothed model out. And the whole point of this exercise was to not use chamfers at all in order to keep the poly count down.

Fuck.
All memes aside right now,
I just realized that one day in the near future technology will probably advance far enough that 3D animators will no longer exist.

We already have mocap, but it usually spits out gross looking shit that needs to be cleaned up.
But if the technology gets too good, to the point where AI generated stuff is identical to hand-made stuff, that entire field of the industry will be completely gone.

I could easily see this being applied to every part of 3D as well.
Everything will become so tool-assisted and automated, that you have to do increasingly more as an individual, until it's completely automated and your job no longer exists.

What the fuck is going on anymore. I'm learning a skill that's going to be obsolete in 20 years.
Fuck me.

>>544055
I don't believe you're correct. Mocap may advance to the point where mocap cleanup no longer exists, but it isn't going to kill character animation, especially cartoon animation that operates based on principles not fully reflected through motion capture unless you do a lot of edits... you're not going to automate cloudy with a chance of meatballs style. Plus many stunts that you cannot mocap are still going to make sense to hand key, not to mention things like flying creatures etc, even with an anim library or ai generated base, you're sure no matter the situation, no matter the shot, something automated could give you exactly what the director wants? It would be great technology but it's stupid to fear advances like this, you just need to work on your craft and be willing to adapt.

Even with a field like lookdev/texture the existence of stuff like megascans or better photoscanning technology doesn't mean the job no longer exists. Things still have to be fine tuned and changed for the needs of the project, and even if photoscanning were perfect, what happens when you need to create something more fictional? Sure, maybe if photoscanning were better there would be less labor intensive work required to create fantasy surfaces even, maybe you would combine parts of different libraries and it would automatically blend them... but that doesn't mean the work itself would go away. We have megascans at work, yet I still do texturing.

>>544054
Why did they show it to him?
With all my respect, Miyazaki is old and definitely not high tech kind of guy, he's more like Tolkien. He's traditional old man who don't like technology, so why they even wanted to show it to him?
Totally missed target audience.

How small are those figurines?
I don't think fdm printing is accurate enough for the details desu

Anyways, for small stuff like that why not buy one of those DIY kits from China for 150 bucks?

>>544728

Just FYI OP, this board is super slow, and while there are occasionally threads on 3d printing, you'll probably have a lot more and faster feedback from the >>/DIY/ board

Also, pretty much regardless of what printer you buy, you're going to need to hand tweak them a little (like you'd do with tabletop figure kits) and acetone vapor polish the figures if you want them to look super smooth and nice

>>544739
They don't have to be super detailed, just enough so you can actually see what it's supposed to be.
Taking something like this for example thingiverse.com/thing:945822 and scaling it to around 6-7 cm in height.
That said this printer is according to the site I'm buying from, able to do layers of 0,05 mm, which i thought sounded pretty detailed.

>>544758
I don't mind doing some tweaking on the figures, I was already expecting I'd have to based on what I've read about the filament this printer is using.

But based on the price and selection available to me (Living in a small town in Norway) this seems like the best option.

use 2 be like u but now I learn the ways of the realms
>http://www.greentoken.de/onlineconv/

blendur can import dae files, just export as onj or fbx

Pick literally anything. Complete? cool now pick something else. Repeat for a while then go back to first item a few weeks/months later and do it again, it will be better.

alternatively random list of shit: http://www.turbosquid.com/Models-to-Make

File: maxresdefault.jpg (62KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1920x1080px

>>544941

Hey, that's a pretty good list. Thanks mate.
Fucking google would only throw me shit tutorials

>download speccy
>take a screenshot
>post it here

Those specs are a little on the low side but nothing that should give you a really horrible experience, particularly in Zbrush. Need to see your GPU specification but last year I was using Zbrush on an iMac from 2007, 2.2ghz Core 2 Duo, with 4 gigs RAM and no dedicated graphics - and unbelievably it ran it ok. Not kidding.

That said, Macs are known for sometimes getting better performance with lower specs than Windows based systems, so go figure.

But anyway - yeah, there's no such thing as too much RAM and if you have space for another 8gb you'll see a big leap in performance all round and it will cost you very little cash, really.

>>544818

>>no such thing as too much RAM and if you have space for another 8gb

Yeah this. 8gb is not an inadequate amount of RAM, but by today's standards it's not a lot either. Get a hardware resource monitoring utility like Speccy or Open Hardware Monitor (both free) and they'll tell you if your RAM is all being gobbled up.

Ideally you need a good bit of RAM overhead btw - that is to say that if your system is at 85-90% load, it'll feel lumpy.

TBC: to be type A, you needn't be a pro or even very good - you just have to be someone who doesn't shitpost I guess.

File: hrc.jpg (73KB, 1009x630px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1009x630px

>>544810
Can you keep your autism contained, please? /3/ is a very slow board and many of the professionals that have posted here from years before do not lurk/post anymore. I'm sure there are still some but your autism is scaring them away. You're like alioto, but in text form.

>>544820

Type A: 0
Type B: 1

"Jobless"

>>544803
nah thats lame bro but thanks

>>544804
You're lame

File: better.png (307KB, 779x857px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 779x857px

I made it better

File: heh.png (367KB, 744x660px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 744x660px

watashi wa dog-san

>>544786
Hey that's pretty racist, I think...