• Digital 3D Art v12
    5,002 replies, posted
Try SketchUp.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49192887]First of all, I recommend you to not judge 3D programs purely by their cube drawing abilities. And second of all, 3DS Max is pretty similar: [vid]http://puu.sh/lzL9r.webm[/vid][/QUOTE] I'm not judging it because of that, to be fair c4d was probably the best choice to start learning basic 3d editing, but for the current uses that I have it's not really doing what I'd like to do with it, or I just can't find the correct tool. Guess I'll have to get 3ds from the school servers now. Thanks for showing that feature.
[QUOTE=Plaster;49192997]I'm not judging it because of that, to be fair c4d was probably the best choice to start learning basic 3d editing, but for the current uses that I have it's not really doing what I'd like to do with it, or I just can't find the correct tool. Guess I'll have to get 3ds from the school servers now. Thanks for showing that feature.[/QUOTE] protip: press S to toggle snapping
[QUOTE=Frying Dutchman;49192906]Try SketchUp.[/QUOTE] I'll try that out if after I've played around in 3ds.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49192887]First of all, I recommend you to not judge 3D programs purely by their cube drawing abilities. And second of all, 3DS Max is pretty similar: [vid]http://puu.sh/lzL9r.webm[/vid][/QUOTE] Or just use the wall tool. It also works with the built in doors and windows so it gets holes carved automatically.
[t]http://puu.sh/lA085/228501691a.png[/t] SPHERE WHEEL
[QUOTE=paul simon;49192887]First of all, I recommend you to not judge 3D programs purely by their cube drawing abilities. And second of all, 3DS Max is pretty similar: [vid]http://puu.sh/lzL9r.webm[/vid][/QUOTE] Adding to this and kind of responding to the bit in the other video in C4D, it's also important to manipulate objects in a way that you're working with the geometry and not mucking with its scale values (which is what it seemed like was being done in C4D) because it can really screw with when you eventually bring the mesh into an engine. Especially when you're working with rigged meshes or things with a parented hierarchy.
RRROOOOOOBOOTOOTOTTTT LEEEEEEEEEEEEG [t]http://puu.sh/lAln4/6ca0544b56.png[/t] [t]http://puu.sh/lAlnv/36bdeef1ce.png[/t]
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;49194948]Adding to this and kind of responding to the bit in the other video in C4D, it's also important to manipulate objects in a way that you're working with the geometry and not mucking with its scale values (which is what it seemed like was being done in C4D) because it can really screw with when you eventually bring the mesh into an engine. Especially when you're working with rigged meshes or things with a parented hierarchy.[/QUOTE] I could do it that way, editing each polygon one by one. It will work, but its going to take way longer and for something that I'm probably going to change in the future I'd rather not waste too much time on it.
Quixel 2.0 is out. [url]http://quixel.se/[/url]
@Plaster It doesn't take way longer. Depending on how primitives are created you don't have to do manual work like that. Max lets you define the l/w/h for a cube when you make it. Most software has that kind of control. To fix the scale problem you will have to reset the transforms of the object at some point anyways, so it's better to only do it when it's really the best method for manipulating an object. But we are talking about such a basic level of 3D work here. Mucking with primitives or meshes at the object level is ultimately going to be a very marginal amount of the time put into modeling.
[QUOTE=hippowombat;49198039]Quixel 2.0 is out. [url]http://quixel.se/[/url][/QUOTE] Does it still make Photoshop tank in RAM usage?
I tried Quixel 2.0 I've hoped that they would have make it faster than the last version. It still feels really sluggish and slow in my opinion. I've gotten too used to Substance painter. Kind of feel that they shot themselves in the foot by still relying on Photoshop.
[QUOTE=asXas;49199259]I tried Quixel 2.0 I've hoped that they would have make it faster than the last version. It still feels really sluggish and slow in my opinion. I've gotten too used to Substance painter. Kind of feel that they shot themselves in the foot by still being a relying on Photoshop.[/QUOTE] While it does seem counter-intuitive to use Photoshop, I like the idea of still being able to use Photoshop's native tools and brushes. Still, I'll most probably buy substance painter when it comes to it.
I was having this discussion with my friend earlier today. While I understand the benefits of Quixel, especially for production, it's just a more cumbersome Substance with less features and versatility. You could have two or three artists producing Substances for others using Painter, giving you total control along the entire pipeline for every material in your game/film. And since it's procedural, you can tweak seed values to get infinite variety from one Substance. Premade content falls so short of this. Plus I don't buy into the scan based nonsense. It's currently still an open problem in the scientific CG community of capturing BSDF/BRDFs from real world objects and then rendering (even efficiently storing) them. Current PBR can't actually represent many aspects of objects and light anyways, so their scanned data can only ever be a very coarse approximation to what the true world shows and will never render [I]correctly[/I]. It doesn't answer any problem for artists (other than cutting out work) because they've still got to fudge things here and there. In the end all you're trying to do is make good art. So really they just are trying to provide a bunch of random presets that you can use to cut out the work of material creation, but conflate them as being better "cause scanned!" This isn't all that compelling if you can't do it right. They could just as easily be making all the Megascans content by hand, which exactly what Allegorithmic already has had for a while (and it's now crowd sourced!), and nobody would know the difference. They've also pushed it back continuously for a few years now making it even less worthwhile of an endeavor for them to pursue. Working at resolutions greater than 4k is cool and all but since it's only useful for films, it could easily be implemented in a pipeline using Substance where you combine lower resolution maps in the shader. This will also naturally be more memory conservative so not being able to paint materials in 8k is a non-issue in practice.
Finally got 3ds max and while playing around testing stuff it's perfect for what I need right now, but why does this happen? [t]https://my.mixtape.moe/xotjma.png[/t] Why does the plane get bigger when rendered, or is the default render not good?
can you upload the max file?
I honestly regret buying Quixel. It's been helpful in some aspects, but for the most part it's been a pain in the ass and a repeating disappointment.
[QUOTE=Plaster;49200017]Finally got 3ds max and while playing around testing stuff it's perfect for what I need right now, but why does this happen? [t]https://my.mixtape.moe/xotjma.png[/t] Why does the plane get bigger when rendered, or is the default render not good?[/QUOTE] Check the render multipliers: [t]http://i.imgur.com/xXvnyKc.png[/t]
LEGVISION [t]http://puu.sh/lBuOe/1c277ae368.gif[/t]
[QUOTE=hippowombat;49200207]I honestly regret buying Quixel. It's been helpful in some aspects, but for the most part it's been a pain in the ass and a repeating disappointment.[/QUOTE] I bought it and used it for about 2 weeks before finding Substance Designer + Painter and haven't touched it since My main problem with Quixel is the really low degree of creativity, with Painter you can paint in your own materials by hand and give it your own touch rather than just having a computer do it. Unless you go to the effort of importing your own materials to Quixel (which most people don't) you can spot from a mile away that it has been textured using it That default wood material :sick:
To be fair it's pretty easy to tell when something's made with Substance, too. Regardless of which robot is doing your work for you, it's still a robot doing your work for you and in the end it looks like a robot did your work for you.
Sometimes. I mean, I use custom brushes and shit in SP and don't even use masks. I pretty much use it as I would photoshop, except 3d.
Really whether you can tell if it's made in a particular program comes down to how much work the artist puts in. If you slap it in quixel and just apply a bunch of presets to it of course it's going to look mediocre. If you put actual work in however you can get really nice, and unique results far quicker than doing everything by hand. Especially now that quixel 2.0 lets you paint right on the mesh a bit like substance painter. Both are awesome tools. Although quixel 2 is less performance heavy than 1.8 it still does have some bugs, and loves to eat up the ram.
I somehow got a free license for it despite never getting a license for the original suite (or anything Quixel related now that I think about it, unless nDo from when it was first released counts). I'm gonna check it out once I get my new computer finally working.
[QUOTE=ColossalSoft;49204396]To be fair it's pretty easy to tell when something's made with Substance, too. Regardless of which robot is doing your work for you, it's still a robot doing your work for you and in the end it looks like a robot did your work for you.[/QUOTE] this is bs honestly. have you even used substance? [img]https://www.allegorithmic.com/sites/default/files/manhole%20procedural.jpg[/img] yep a robot did all the work here
How do you get height maps to look like that? I downloaded one of those competition winners, one with paved stone that had water inbetween the stones. Whenever I looked at it in the viewport, it looked shit where as it should have looked something like the stones in that sewer image.
I guess what you're getting at is that it needs to be rendered with tessellation enabled. The settings vary between OpenGL and the new iRay renderer. They can be tweaked under Materials -> Edit as well as Scene -> Edit in the 3D View
[QUOTE=ColossalSoft;49204396]To be fair it's pretty easy to tell when something's made with Substance, too. Regardless of which robot is doing your work for you, it's still a robot doing your work for you and in the end it looks like a robot did your work for you.[/QUOTE] I hope you aren't one of those guys that won't use these new texturing tools because they're too far away from traditional Photoshop texturing Newsflash: Photoshop is a "robot" too
I never said that, I just said most things made with those look generic. I have both Quixel and Substance Painter. Some of my closest friends are procedural texture algorithms!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.