Which do you prefer?http://www.strawpoll.me/12556322
mari my man
>>556249I've been using Quixel the whole time, it kinda has more clean textures, masks etc, but I'm going to use substance for the project which I'm doing now just to see what it is.. but from what I've seen in substance it has much more to offer just because it's bigger and has been much longer, but quixel is veruy veri awesome and same thing can be done in it
>>556249If Quixel was a standalone application and not reliant on Photoshop, it would have my vote.
Well, Substance Painter 2 is standalone and has a free student license whereas Quixel Suite relies on a very, *very* expensive product, on top of costing 70 bucks for the educational license itself (and you'll pay more for the commercial licenses).That being said, Substance Painter 2 does have some pretty shitty selection tools when it comes to filling in polygons (it picks up EVERYTHING inside the selection box, you can't have it pick up just the faces the camera's seeing), and is kinda crap for actually painting in details since it lacks opacity locks. Plus Blair Armitage painted a sculpt of Aigis on DDO Painter and I orgasm several times every time I look at the finished product, so I'm going to say Quixel is better even though I use Substance.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWe2ZOy8bc
>>556249Quixel if you're more comfortable with Photoshop.Substance if you're more comfortable with nodes.With both the prerequisite materials are good but can require a lot of fiddling.>>556253Mari if you know where to get some nice polarized photos to project.
>>556326>more comfortable with Photoshopthis is BS. quixel is just using Photoshop, you don't need any knowledge of it, if you are starting from 0 it will be the same thing with quixel and with substance, you'll need to learn these programs and photoshop knowledge won't help you much in quixel, especially advanced stuff in quixel I started with quixel because someone said tis to me, but overall Quixel is very awesome
While we're talking about Photoshop, why is the Photography plan, which lists both Lightroom and Photoshop, cheaper than Single App plans for just Photoshop?
>>556249Both are good so i use them. And Mari, sometimes even 3d Coat.
>>556400Because they don't want you to buy the single apps, they want you to buy the whole suite. They only made an exception for Photoshop because it's so heavily used and threw in Lightroom for a bit of extra marketing.>>556402Not if you're looking to profit.
Why can't quixel just pay some slav programmers to turn it into a standalone multiplatform program? It's a great tool but the photoshop requirements are so fucking stupid and it runs like shit. I'm slowly moving all my 3d work to linux I already have modo, maya, blender and mari with native linux versions it's just quixel and zbrush making it annoying to completely switch.
>>556249I like using Quixel but Substance Painter has more versatility. Megascans and NDO however are amazing and I use them all the time at work.
>>556261This. I have licenses for both, and the content that Quixel has is fantastic. Though it's less stable than painter cause it is a plugin.Use both softwares, see what you like. I find both viewports have their own interpretation of what the the UE4 is supposed to look like, and both come close in their own ways.Substance Painter 2 has iray for renders as well, so right now, Substance Painter is winning in my book.
>>556424Substance Painter/designer and 3dcoat runs fine on any linux.
>>556249Painter. It's hard to add ur own shit into a Quixel workflow.
If I'm just throwing some basic materials on the model or I'm under time pressure, I use Quixel. For everything else, I use Substance, simply more options. What I'm using regularly is NDO, perfect for adding some details to the normal map.
>>556511Even more perfect than Substance Designer and Bitmap2Material?
>>556514Not really better in terms of quality, but definitely faster. Unless you create a procedural system in Designer and shit out a hundred textures, then Designer is faster obviously. NDO is perfect because you just paint something and then run NDO over it and you have some nice normal map details. Very straightforward. My mom could use it.
Can we all agree that Quixel is better for simple texture painting/normals?
>>556249Quixel is for people without self respect who have to rely on premade material values and textures. Every time I see Quixel in the "used software" list that work is 50% less impressive.
>>556702>that work is 50% less impressivehttps://80.lv/articles/bringing-the-legend-of-zelda-weapons-to-hd/>When creating alphas to use on your objects, I found that using NDO to generate height maps from your textures works much better than simply converting your images to black and white for the height information. The outcome was less distorted and gave me a much more realistic height variance which felt more natural with respect to whatever material I was trying to emulate.>As far as texturing goes, I decided to use the Quixel Suite largely due to the fact I am familiar with how it works and it has an incredibly large and vast material library with hundreds of presets to get you started. It’s such a powerful tool which I believe is a bit underrated and doesn’t get the love it deserves! I will say, although Quixel and Substance both have so many presets to choose from to get you started, that doesn’t make it a one click solution I’ve found. You still need a great knowledge of how materials work and interact in the real world in order to develop custom materials that can work in any lighting situation and still be believable. I’m definitely still learning everyday and hopefully improving!
>>556703looks like shit.
>>556703you consider that impressive?
>>556705>>556706Wew lad, did Quixel piss on your cereal bowl? You don't have to be so bitter. It's a good portfolio model, you can probably do the same thing with Painter but there would be more of a setup involved in Designer. The guy who did it is just saying he liked Quixel Suite more because he found the height map generation to be better than a photoshop conversion and it comes pre-loaded with an assload of materials.
>>556709>It's a good portfolio modelthe worst kind of shit to put in your portfolio is fanart of this qualityalso>generating your normal map from 1 (one) photoholy shit
>>556711>the worst kind of shit to put in your portfolio is fanart of this qualityCare to qualify or are you just mad you can't do as good a job?
>>556713stop posting here
>>556713It doesn't show creativity and neither does it show you can accurately model an object. It is the easiest way to hide incompetence behind "artistic vision" while at the same time not being creative enough do something completely new. As evidenced by using Quixel on top of a ridiculously smooth bake.
>>556716Shit, I better back off before you generate a height map of my face with *two* pictures instead of one.>>556718>neither does it show you can accurately model an objectIt's a Hylian shield and the Master Sword, mate. There's been a few iterations on the sword but I'm not sure how much more "accurate" you want the model to be. You'd rather he have modeled the 8-faced blob from OoT instead?>As evidenced by using Quixel How is the model "incompetent" though? I keep hearing software bias but nothing concrete. You'd have baked it differently, fair enough, but that's a difference in workflow and not a flaw with the finished model.
>>556721We're not the same person you mong.The model is incompetent because it features very basic geometries mashed together with a soft bake and the retarded baby of a realistic and a stylistic texture. Nothing anyone should ever consider putting in their portfolio. Stop defending your shitty art on a cantonese knitting board and improve.
>>556723>We're not the same person you mong.I never said you were.>Stop defending your shitty art on a cantonese knitting board and improve.Are you this guy?>>556630Good iterations on the whole "cantonese board" motif. I can see why you think the model isn't creative. I can see that you don't like the model. I'll back off before your sperg gets out of control.
>>556723>features very basic geometriesYes, because everything needs a retarded amount of polygons to look good. Fucking idiot.
>>556743Nice argument, except we might as well hire a monkey to polymodel if your geometry is this simple.Not like texturing is harder, a monkey could do it.No wonder our jobs are getting shipped off to indians.
>>556745why do these cuffs have wear on the inside? Whoever textured this is a complete noob
>>556770have you thought they could have been used to arrest robots you fucking moron
>>556745Wtf kind of handcuffs have ridiculous patina and edge wear like that? Police department keeping equipment from the 1920s? Looks horrible.
>>556777these cuffs have wear on the inside, looks gay
>>556249Why the fuck did they choose to use a hideous render of a repulsive faggot with a disgusting-looking chest and stomach to advertise their software?I feel depressed just looking at that shit.
>>556777It's something called "metal". Look it up.And yeah, could be an old pair of handcuffs. What do you know?
>>556781>if it isn't attractive it must be horribleI will never understand this mindset. Do you have trouble looking at old people? Can you watch a movie or play a video game that contains any character who isn't conventionally attractive?The wrinkles and folds are visually interesting and add tertiary detail and also makes the character look more worn which works to enhance that grungy street look.
>>556777As long as they, you know, work like any other handcuff design then it is a handcuff. It can feature fucking spikes and still be handcuff.
>>556777its not like handcuffs stop working after a decade or two senpai, they cuff niggers but good all the same
>>556769Yeah man, because hitting the smooth command on your model a few times really takes an expert in the field. The more polys your bloated model has, the more of a master you are.
>>556769Show us your portfolio.
>>556725>Good iterations on the whole "cantonese board" motif.You are a fucking newfag and you need to stop posting and start lurking. Eventually you'll understand what's going on, how to read between the lines, how to know when you're being trolled and when you're being given valid criticism (which is usually mixed in with the trolling).>>556791>its not like handcuffs stop working after a decade or two senpaiThey literally do tho. Literally literally, as in the mechanisms seize up without maintenance (unless it's like, a cast iron manacle and even then), and figuratively in that criminals figure out how to exploit weaknesses in the design a new variations come out.Also police departments are bureaucratic and corrupt as shit and somebody at the top has a relative or friend selling equipment to the police and they're getting a kickback to ensure that the police keep ordering new equipment even if they don't really need it.
Can we all agree that Substance is faster than Quixel?
>>556880you can also change resolutions in quixel on the fly,
>>556835>You are a fucking newfag and you need to stop posting and start lurking.>Eventually you'll understand what's going on, how to read between the lines, how to know when you're being trolled and when you're being given valid criticism (which is usually mixed in with the trolling).Uh-huh. >They literally do tho. Literally literally, as in the mechanisms seize up without maintenance (unless it's like, a cast iron manacle and even then), and figuratively in that criminals figure out how to exploit weaknesses in the design a new variations come out.>seize up without maintenance>without maitenanceSounds like you know some pretty shitty police officers.
>>556745why are you posting my work for fucks sake?
>>556892It was posted two WIP threads ago for fucks sake.
>>556769its from highpoly bake. also did this model in under 30 minutes. so great care and detail was not a priority
>>556326>Substance if you're more comfortable with nodes.Substance painter has nodes?
>>556703If you think that is impressive you should reconsider your own work.
>>557309No, but Substance Designer has nodes.
So which one is better for skin/organic texture?
Substance Painter 2's selection box on polygon fill mode is a PIECE OF SHIT that selects everything inside the box - in front, the sides and behind the camera - without any obvious way of changing it. Sometimes, I want to be able to select just what the camera sees, but instead must click on each individual polygon separately like a baby learning to point at things for the first time. Also, the camera gets physically caught on geometry for some bizarre reason. In no other modern 3D-related software would this be a thing. If you back up into geometry by accident, you have to turn off the shader and move out, or literally push yourself out with much effort.There's also no obvious way of exporting a color map, doing some small alterations to it on a program like SAI or Photoshop, and then re-importing it into the model the exact way it was, besides creating a fill layer and setting the texture to it, and then fiddling with the UV scale settings in the hopes you can get it in place again.It's also kinda stupid the way the program handles imports. You either create a new shelf for your shit, or you can import it into a select few categories, not all of them, which leads to organizational issues.I like how accessible SP2 is for quick texturing workflows, but holy shit it has some frustrating interface issues. I go to sleep sometimes wondering if Quixel is any better.
>>557530It's also kinda stupid the way the program handles imports. You either create a new shelf for your shit, or you can import it into a select few categories, not all of them, which leads to organizational issues.The real frustrating part is importing something into a shelf, realizing that you have to change and import it again, and then being unable to delete the original import without starting a fresh project.Why? If you right-click the asset, you have a contextual menu. Put a fucking delete option in there.
>>557530 for what sp2 offers those quirks shouldn't be discussed
>>557550>If you take out all the bad things, the software's perfect!
>>556292>whereas Quixel Suite relies on a very, *very* expensive product$5/month sure is very *very* expensive.
>>557317>>556705Post your artstation
>>557543>The real frustrating part is importing something into a shelf, realizing that you have to change and import it again, and then being unable to delete the original import without starting a fresh project.Are you retarded?Just overwrite the old material when you save the updated version then just right click it on the shelf and hit Reload.
>>557582I was talking about Photoshop. If you don't want any of the other Creative Cloud stuff, you're paying 30 dollars a month for it, or 19 if you sign up for their yearly subscription.You are then paying either 140 bones for a Quixel Suite commercial license or 40 bucks for an academic license, with the caveat that you can't sell anything under the academic license.I don't know where you got this 5 dollar thing from, the cheapest bundle is Lightroom + Photoshop and that's 10 bucks a month on Adobe's website.
>>557585*correction: the Quixel Suite academic license is 70 bucks, it's on discount right now for 40.
>>557551i already assumed you pirated sp2 so you don't have ranting rights when it comes to the shortcomings of the software.and if you did buy the software, you can still forgive those stuff because of the awesome amount of materials going around online. just think how bad yours models will look without it.
>>557585Commercial license is $79 right now though.Substance Pack is $300.
>>557589>i already assumed you pirated sp2 so you don't have ranting rights when it comes to the shortcomings of the software.this isnt true at all. You pirate software so you can tell if its shit or not. You have 100% right to call shit, shit. Substance is trassshhhh
>>557928You had me all the way until the end there but then you lost me.
>>557931>Substance is trasssshhhhhI encourage people to download software before they buy it to try it out and see if it's for them, before they make a substantial financial investment. I agree entirely that, if you don't enjoy using a software, you have a right to express your full experience with it to other people.I don't agree that any one piece of software is objectively trassshhhhh. One man's Mudbox is another man's zBrush. I think the interface in zBrush is total garbage, but people who have learned to make use of said interface go on to make the most amazing sculpts the internet has ever seen.It's not that I think that zBrush is shit, that it's objectively shit. It's just shit for me. The same logic goes for Substance Painter.
Can Substance do anything that Quixel can't or vice versa? Or are the differences solely in workflow?
>>557928you are trash my friend. its just like those people that constantly switching render engines and modeling software because they are impatient.so you had some problems with substance and you want to make this personal like its the worst program ever, you need to control your emotions.
>>557932If you think that Zbrush is shit for you you're short-sighted. Terrible UI aside it's the most capable sculpting package available to artists. >>557585Why would you want photoshop alone when Adobe is purposefully pushing their photography bundle for 10 bucks? After the initial cost of Quixel suite, which is pretty small, you just need the aforementioned subscription, and you're probably going to be using photoshop anyway for any industry-like workflow.
>>557927>tfw you got on the substance wagon back when it was $50
>>556777Its because a lot of "artists" today that use substance cant think for themselves and apply logic, they just copy what they saw in some shitty youtube tutorial.
>>558077im glad that my shitty rushed handcuffs prompted a philosophical discussion on how a generation of artists are lazy and the history of handcuffs in general/3/ ladies and gentleman
>>558098I like how your handcuffs came out perfectly well but you keep flogging yourself in the back with them and assuming they're total shit because some people on the internet told you they are.Were you abused as a child?
>>558126no but it would feel better if all people here actually attempted their own handcuffs and compare, this would be more productive and everyone would learn from it.but instead people just bitch and moan, when asked to post a model they post either a deformed zombie that they made in zbrush or some ironic fuckery like that.maybe im just mad or maybe you are right, point being im pissed off.
Can we all agree that Quixel is far better for normal mapping?
Isn't it more intuitive to paint directly onto a texture? I can't imagine it's better being locked into painting on flat UV Maps in Photoshop so Substance is better.
>>558130If you're using face-weighted normals then sure, otherwise Painter is the way
>>558163You can do that of course you fucking fool. Have you even watched any quixel tuts? You know shit and your opinion means shit
>>558170Since when does Photoshop support 3D models?
>>558178Quixel is a plugin for photoshop, it allows 3d models
I'm new to substance and QTDTOT thread is deadI converted an os normal map to a ts so that I don't get weird clipping on the mouth. How can I import the converted TS normal map onto my material in substance?
If I buy a quixel license, will it work on my pirated photoshop?
>>558493only buy hardware, kiddo