PBR texturing, is it worth it?

SuperFranky

I'm trying to wrap my mind around all that PBR business, and I have to ask what you all think. I'm a beginner to the texturing, and I really want to know what is the best course of action for me, do I need to learn how to texture with PBR approach or stick with simple diffuse/spec/gloss like most artists use? Of course, I want my work to look the best I can, but what about application in work/freelance etc, will these skills be of use then?

AA3D

whats the problem in doing both ?
i didnt get to try PBR yet .. but as iv read the changes are not that much .

the way i see it :
new tech came out . it may be the future .
however the old tech is still required and will prolly be for some time .
so yeah ...

again i didnt try PBR yet or even read deeply on it . so please take my words with a grain of salt .

slosh

I would def learn PBR...its going to become industry standard soon. Understanding those principles is vital because it is a more realistic interpretation of lighting in next gen engines. That being said, though I understand the tech, I haven't used it on a character yet so I'm in the same boat!

lysaara

For hyper-realistic(aka 'photoreal') artwork PBR seems to be the way to go, and it's not especially difficult to get your head around. This is a good primer on how it works. It's not going to be the solution for every project, but it is certainly popular for realistic art styles.

SuperFranky

Thanks, looks like I'll have to try it out for myself.

commador

lysaara wrote: »

For hyper-realistic(aka 'photoreal') artwork PBR seems to be the way to go, and it's not especially difficult to get your head around. This is a good primer on how it works. It's not going to be the solution for every project, but it is certainly popular for realistic art styles.

I don't think its limited to only realistic styled art. It works very well with borderlands and WoW-esque work. Is a different workflow? Absolutely. Is it idea for every project? Not at all. But it can do more than just photorealistic materials.

I'll see if I can find some, but there were lots of examples in the toolbag 2 beta thread.

ZacD

Remember that Pixar even uses PBR. It's just as important for stylized artists to know.

marks

Yes, PBR is worth it. Do it.

Add3r

slosh wrote: »

I would def learn PBR...its going to become industry standard soon. Understanding those principles is vital because it is a more realistic interpretation of lighting in next gen engines. That being said, though I understand the tech, I haven't used it on a character yet so I'm in the same boat!

I would say for companies (-ESPECIALLY- AAA studios) that are not working on mobile or last gen spec games, that it is already an industry standard. There are definitely a good handful of studios not using it for games where it is not needed or the stylized feel does not benefit from the updated tech (Blizzard and Gearbox).

As for learning workflows, learn it all and then some. I am an env artist/lighting artist by trade, but I am constantly studying outside my trade as well (programming for tools building and tech art stuffs to support my env art). So I say learn both workflows. Both are used, and in the industry you need to be multifaceted, meaning you need to be able to do anything your employer asks you to do under your range of responsibilities. So if they ask for a PBR asset one day, and a mobile non-PBR asset the next, you need to be able to deliver.

So, a TL;DR, dont turn down ANY opportunities for knowledge, especially when it comes to your craft. Learn both workflows, and attempt to master them.

SHEPEIRO

yes

Racer445

if you have a firm grasp on how to use a traditional diffuse/spec/gloss, PBR isn't that much different--just more logical really.

the two articles on the marmoset site are excellent.

SaboR1996

my only problem with PBR is the naming of texture maps.
it sounds... stupid.
like metalness. it isn't even a word.
its silly. but PBR looks insane, some of the work I have seen looks immense to traditional texturing methods.
I totally would, I'm starting to have a dig at it myself.

gilesruscoe

PBR requires less properties to be tweaked in order to define a surface, so of course its worth it. One of the huge bonus' of using a PBR pipeline is that art creation becomes somewhat simplified and normalized.

AlexCatMasterSupreme

perna wrote: »

It's simple. You need to understand the principles of "pbr" to do ANY texturing whatsoever, regardless of which tech you're using. You can't ever get away with not learning how light and materials behave if you intend to be a decent material artist.

This has been true since way before "pbr" shaders hit the scene.


edit: Well, you can can get away with it, and most still do. Just not if you want quality output

Exactly, you don't even have to learn much....

leleuxart

marks wrote: »

Yes, PBR is worth it. Do it.

This.

And it was already mentioned, but read the two tutorials on the Toolbag site and check out Andrew Maximov's videos on Youtube, he does a nice summarization for artists. The blog posts for Remember Me are a little more tech oriented, but check those out too.

Cint128

Yes, I agree with leleuxart, I didnt really know much about it until recently but Im starting to wrap my head around it now after
watching this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LNwMJeWFr0U
reading this
http://artisaverb.info/PBT.html
this
http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-theory
and this
http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-practice

SuperFranky

Thanks for the encouragement, guys. I'm so excited to dive into this process.

dwall

I have about 6-7 weeks until deadline for my work samples for my school application.
So far I have gotten a pretty good understanding of modeling in Maya, sculpting in ZB, retopo in Maya, baking normal maps in Maya and xNormal and AO, Cavity and Curvature in nDo2.

My next step is of course making a diffuse, spec and so forth and at the moment I am torn between if I should learn the "old ways" first or jump straight to PBR.

One industry contact I have thinks I should skip the old ways and learn PBR straight away as it is undeniably "the future", but my other friend in the "biz" thinks, as Add3r, that I should learn the old ways first before I make the leap into the future. I am leaning towards the opinion of my second friend, and Add3r, as I can see the need for that expertise on mobile projects and such but PBR is sooo intriguing to me.

The idea of mimicking reality with simulations of real world physics lies at the core of my fascination for 3d graphics, and is one of the reasons why I want to become an environment artist, so it's hard for me to restrain myself from delving into the world of PBR.

I'm gonna give the schools a call tomorrow and ask for their opinion regarding what they want to see in my work samples but I would be happy to hear your opinions on the matter as well.

As strapped for time that I am, what do you guys think would be the best course of action?

ZacD

Jump straight to PBR, It can be a lot quicker to make a material look "right" when you know the exact values in PBR. Since you are just applying for a school, by the time you graduate in a few years there will be much more PBR games out. It's better the be ahead of the curve. PBR can work great for stylized or mobile games.

Add3r

Thats not what I meant, I was meaning that why spend the time learning old ways of working when the industry is moving towards PBR as a norm. Like I said in my original post, there are only a handful of studios in the AAA market (that are not mobile or related development houses) that still use the older way of creating texture sets. Like others have said, you need to know basic PBR to properly texture in the first place, why step backward. Also, why apply with older "tech" or workflows, when you can apply with the newer "tech" and workflows?

My logic behind it. Go for it, plus the results with the new PBR workflow is impressive.

dwall

Oh sorry if I misunderstood!

I will probably start learning PBR soon, I'll just give the schools a call and see what they think. If they want me to learn the old ways I guess I have no choice!

Joopson

I'm guessing most schools are going to be behind the curve. I know mine was, in Los Angeles.

Codexus

It doesn't matter. It's basically the same fundamental skills that you apply in slightly different ways.

If you understood what the maps were before and knew why they worked that way then switching to making slightly different maps is no problem at all.

Now if you were the kind of artist that would just copy/paste diffuse into specular and fiddle with it until it looks right without trying to think about how the materials work then the change is going to be more brutal for you (but very beneficial in the end).