|
davide445
Posts: 4
|
Hi all, my first post here.
Selecting technologies for a 3D simulation project, I was testing FF as a way to create a materials variations database. No experience in parametric texturing, I came from science and tech background so like the node based design.
Using some of the existing filters I tried to export them on a 3D engine, but all seems suffer a lack of resolution as in the attached example (from the filter Circular brushed metal, see the pixelate resolution even if the image is 2048 pixel)
Really interested to evaluate the only existing alternative to Substance Designer, want to know what I'm doing wrong.
|
| Posted: April 17, 2019 4:48 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
emme
|
Hi,
File - New Image, will let you set the resolution (600x600 by default). If 2048 px isn't enough, maybe try 4096. There's not much more to it, FF handles output resolutions like any other graphics software.
I don't know what kind of 3D engine you're using and if the problem could be on the engine side, but if it's working fine with other textures, then you're probably just rendering at lower (than intended) resolution in FF.
Hope you'll get it working.
|
| Posted: April 17, 2019 7:52 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
davide445
Posts: 4
|
Hi I was trying to follow your suggestion and push up to 4096 the resolution.
But this started hogging my PC pushing the 6 core/12 thread Ryzen 2600X at 100% for about 15 min every time I want to generate the bump or normal map.
This is normal?
|
| Posted: April 18, 2019 5:59 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
GMM
Moderator
Filter Forge, Inc
Posts: 3491
|
15 minutes is pretty average, at this image size some filters can take half an hour. Rendering speed more depends on the filter itself than on your hardware specs.
|
| Posted: April 18, 2019 8:44 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
davide445
Posts: 4
|
I was reading many posts way back to 2012 complaining about the core rendering engine speed for 4k images. Now in 2019 I was expecting (maybe wrongly) something better.
To be honest for my fast prototyping needs it's not the best option.
Didn't understood why the image finished rendering in the viewport but for minutes the Rendering progress bar is proceeding and the CPU working. Maybe the viewport it's a preview at lower resolution?
|
| Posted: April 18, 2019 8:55 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
GMM
Moderator
Filter Forge, Inc
Posts: 3491
|
| Quote |
|---|
davide445 wrote:
Maybe the viewport it's a preview at lower resolution? |
Yes, if View > Preview size is set to Reduced. Also, you may want to go to Tools > Multipass preview and set it to 'Legacy' or 'Off'.
|
| Posted: April 18, 2019 9:36 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
dactilardesign
|
| Quote |
|---|
I was reading many posts way back to 2012 complaining about the core rendering engine speed for 4k images. Now in 2019 I was expecting (maybe wrongly) something better.
|
Filters from 2012 were way simpler. As hardware gets more powerful, FF and filters get more complex.
| Quote |
|---|
| To be honest for my fast prototyping needs it's not the best option. |
If you are prototyping, you don't need 4k textures. You hardly need any in fact, ¿what are you prototyping exactly?
A good optmization for real time rendering is to use maps at different resolutions:
- 4K for normal (if you really need that detail)
- 2K for albedo
- 512x512 for the rest of the maps such as AO, emission or roughness.
These proportions between maps work best for PBR except in very special cases.
Remember you can bake AO in the vertex information.
Also decals and detail maps help a lot. "did you see that? but you knew that already because you are an advanced user"
|
| Posted: November 22, 2019 2:49 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
davide445
Posts: 4
|
It's an old thread, anyway since appear you are interested.
I was trying to understand how to generate dynamically textures for a construction simulation product.
The point is being for myself a new activity I needed learning by doing, and waiting and waiting simply make impossible to learn.
In the end I decide to go for the easy way and subscribe for Substance Source.
Substance Designer does have a horrible and outdated UI, but let you experiment out of the box in a reasonable time. Using it at 0.05% his possibilities, but still got all integrated and can proceed step by step.
Will stick with it as soon someone will finally able to create a modern node based 3d materials Designer. Tested the new Quixel (now Epic Games) Mixer but I really really don't like the layer approach.
|
| Posted: November 22, 2019 7:08 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
dactilardesign
|
I like Substance Designer, it's a really powerful and flexible tool for games. On desktop you can make substances to be generated in real time in your game.
I don't like Quixel either. "did you see that? but you knew that already because you are an advanced user" |
| Posted: November 23, 2019 7:06 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
raabix
Nodist
|
One of the major drawbacks of Substance Designer is that filters often change drastically when you change the resolution of the texture to be computed. Filter Forge has a much smarter approach by being able to supersample (a technique that is also used for raytracing) to generate information between the pixels an generate an average value which generates much smoother results. This is not the case in Substance Designer. In Substance Source a lot of the content is also non-procedural in the meantime, meaning it comes from actual images.
Having said that, I agree that some features in Filter Forge could be more modern, however, the accurate sampling of procedurally generated content makes it more powerful than Substance Designer at the cost of a lower speed. However, I don't want this thread to derail to a Substance vs Filter Forge discussion. Just adding my 2 cents.
|
| Posted: December 4, 2019 7:14 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
