Is quixel worth getting, or should I just get substance painter?
>>582273Quixel Suite 2 is more geared towards faster texturing using presets. If you don't mind having to use mainly pre-made textures and materials, and prefer working in Photoshop rather than having to Alt/Tab between your 2D and 3D editing softwares, then go for it.Substance Painter is much more complex, but you can control much more variables in your textures with its nodes system. As a result it has a higher learning curve, but you get more flexibility. If you feel like you want to invest more time in your texturing and following industry standards, then go with Subs.Personally, I'm a one-man modeler/texturer and don't feel like investing more than I have to getting my pee-bee-arrs up and running, so I went with Quixel. It's also much cheaper. As we're talking it's on sale for 80$ right now.
>>582281How much pre-made textures does quixel provide? I might actually try it out then because I mainly use SP with free smart materials but it is hard to find good ones.
>>582363It has pretty much any material you might need
Can I bake AO map with only a low poly model (I mean, only a single version, I don't have lo/hi both)? This motherfucker won't bake everything like SP, so I need to bake some maps outside of it. 3d Shit Max always shuts down when I try to texture bake, so I want to use xNormal, but it seems that I need to have both high and low poly model? Please explain this procedure, it's pretty weird in Quixel, even after watching tutorials.
>>582970quixel can make an AO from a normal map. If you're baking anything, use Knald. It's GPU based and can bake 8k normal maps and AOs with 16x AA in a minute on a GTS 1060. Knald can also bake AO from a low poly model and a normal map.
>>582281i make my own seamless textures for quixel, then use the pre-made options on them. so basically, i make my own leather texture, then use the worn texture preset, but replace the albedo, normals, and AO with my own. it's more satisfying that way, and barely takes any more effort.
>>583078would SP take way more effort making the same texture?
Yeh. You can get it for free if you look in the right places.
>>583084in my opinion, yes. unless you use this tool too, which makes this whole process much easier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKQTMHVOMKki actually use this before putting in my texture into quixel. i'd also like to point out that i only use quixel because of it's ease of use, amazing price point, and because i know someone that got me a corporate key for photoshop cs5.
I tried Quixel for the first time yesterday and I love some things about it, but the only bad thing is that it seems to be a lot more demanding than SP and there are lots of loadings for everything. Also, tons of tabs and windows open, feels a bit chaotic.
>>583104Ditto. Quixel is WAY more of a resource hog than SP, which just amazes me at how fluid and quick it is. Always. Yeah, I've given both a good long test run and I can say for sure SP gets my vote now. Quixel is certainly a great idea; incorporating it into Shop like that should've been a great way to just enhance the tools we all know how to use already, but it just didn't work out that way. It feels clunky and slow and heavy.Go with SP. It's clean, quick, and super simple.
>>583108I use both. Quixel's big library of smart materials is pretty much the main reason I like it because I usually used premade materials in SP anyway. So that's a huge huge plus for me. But yeah, it's like 2+ times slower than SP for some reason.
>>583112Spend a week creating your own presets in SP. Well...wait can't you use the images that Quixel uses for it's presets? Aren't they all in a folder somewhere on your hard drive?