Hey bros, anyone know of a good alternative to crazybump that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars? That you've tried yourself or at least know someone who has.
>>513973>crazybumpbut why tho
>>513974I dont get what your trying to say :x
developer nvidia com/nvidia-texture-tools-adobe-photoshop
Anyone here use knald how does it compare to xnormal.
>>513973xnormal, crazy bump, zbrush, 3d max, blender, maya.
Ignore all others in this thread.AwesomeBump is what you are looking for. It is THE free crazy bump alternative.
>>513973I had a chance to use Quixel the other day, about 140 if you want to use it to make money, 70 for an academic license. i didnt get to really use much of it, was using it to derive normals from textures, which worked better than i expected
>>513973You could also use the older free version of NDO. Photoshop required.
>>513982^^ what this guy is saying. AwesomeBump is awesome and has similar if not better options, it does crash on me very easily however which can be frustrating
>>513973>Yar har skiddale dee, you arrr a pirateAlso mudbox
never mind bros, turns out that crazybump is only $100 if you don't make over $200k
>turns out that crazybump is only $100 For 320 $ you can get the whole substance painter/substance designer suit with bitmap to bumpmap generator just like ceazybump in a monthly fee of 20$ (so you pay 20 $ every month for a bit over a year, 16 months, and you have a whole texturing suit)
>>514037what's the difference between substance painter and designer? does designer not let you paint on the mesh or something?
>>514038Thats why one is called Painter and the other Designer. With Designer you can create Materials, with Painter you can paint these materials. Designer is node based, very procedural and flexible, but more for technical artists. You can mix bitmaps, vector graphics and procedural stuff. It basicly creates shader networks, but the good thing is you can import them to Maya, Cinema, Unity, Unreal etc...The procedural parameters stay exposed and you can always generate countless variations and changes in quasi realtime.Painter is great, but Designer is the real game changer.
>>514037yeah but what about 3D coat's painting?
>>514069more like 3D nope.
>>514049so is painter useless on its own then?
>>514070alright, what the shit does this mean? what[s wrong with 3d coat now?
>>514079No, absolutly not. Its very capable on its own and you'll get a library of materials to work with. All the funky smart materials are there with all the procedural functionality. Its no empty marketing talk when they say it makes you workflow 5x times faster. All while maintaining a 90% Non-destructive workflow.Painter really is great, but the potential in the node based Designer is just awesome.
>>514145Not OP, but I have used Painter for a bit now and it's very usefull and speeds up things tremendously. But I have one concern that things might look "cheap" (like when you use a drop shadow or a bevel and emboss or some overused effect in photoshop people can tell, even people who are amateurs and might not even know anything about photoshop)Like a bad use of the wear and tear generator or the chipped paint effect on the edges is a tell tale sign that something is made in substance painter. I try to tweak the existing materials as much as I can and add my own layers so it doesn't look like obvious substance painter. I have some concerns that people might think less of my work if someone could tell that something is made with substance just by looking at it.
>>514151Good observations. My advice: custom stencil maps, alphas, dirtmasks, brushes, + whatever. You should hoard all these stuff anyways and use them in every program. The other tip would be to increase the amount of dirt layers, but decrease their intensity.meaning 5 layers with different sizes at 7% visibility look better than one or 2 with 30%.In general use the time you saved by increasing the amount of detail you put in.
>>514222speaking of that, does anyone know where to find lots stencils, noise maps, etc?
>>513973those wheels are cancerous