Traditional Texturing vs PBR vs Game Engine
polycounter lvl 8
Okay everyone, so I have quite a few questions I hope you guys can answer. I have been modeling and texturing in quixel 1.8. The software is quite amazing and takes my model and really sells it. Now its so easy to texture in there that it almost feels wrong. I will provide a few assets I made in there for a scene im working on.
OFF TOPIC BUT RELATES: Been playing a lot of MetalGear:V and while the characters and main assets are amazing, you can see some really low rez environment assets such as barrels, crates, mounted lights etc. Now I am sure if they wanted to go super hard on them, they would have looked great and Im sure they did that for engine optimization purposes but it inspired me to try and match their work but better in my personal scene. However, if you were to zoom in to their models, you see that they rushed or didn't bake some assets properly, especially the cylindrical ones. You see that nasty waviness on ALL of them. Which leads me to this.
Is Texturing in programs like quixel industry standard for current and next gen asset creation? Would it be best to stay traditional and away from PBR?
What is the best or most popular tool for PBR creation? Ive heard of substance painter but I am terrified of learning new software especially if its going to die out quickly.
Also, if PBR is better? Is it okay to use their default textures or importing some of your own is better?
Lastly, the renderers in those softwares make everything look absolutely amazing, and then you bring it into an engine like Unity and BAM reality hits. It looks good but the amazing lost its touch. Any suggestions as to what to use and what to turn off in these renderers to see what it may look like in a game engine?
Thanks Everyone.
The pictures above are PBR except the knife. I did that one with the traditional photoshop workflow.
OFF TOPIC BUT RELATES: Been playing a lot of MetalGear:V and while the characters and main assets are amazing, you can see some really low rez environment assets such as barrels, crates, mounted lights etc. Now I am sure if they wanted to go super hard on them, they would have looked great and Im sure they did that for engine optimization purposes but it inspired me to try and match their work but better in my personal scene. However, if you were to zoom in to their models, you see that they rushed or didn't bake some assets properly, especially the cylindrical ones. You see that nasty waviness on ALL of them. Which leads me to this.
Is Texturing in programs like quixel industry standard for current and next gen asset creation? Would it be best to stay traditional and away from PBR?
What is the best or most popular tool for PBR creation? Ive heard of substance painter but I am terrified of learning new software especially if its going to die out quickly.
Also, if PBR is better? Is it okay to use their default textures or importing some of your own is better?
Lastly, the renderers in those softwares make everything look absolutely amazing, and then you bring it into an engine like Unity and BAM reality hits. It looks good but the amazing lost its touch. Any suggestions as to what to use and what to turn off in these renderers to see what it may look like in a game engine?
Thanks Everyone.
The pictures above are PBR except the knife. I did that one with the traditional photoshop workflow.
Replies
A few things here.
1) you can use photoshop to do PBR textures. Quixel and Substance designer/painter are tools to make it easier but they're not the only way to do it.
2) Always be learning new software. I've learnt more software than I use every day. That said substance designer/painter is more popular than you think. It's more useful as a professional tool in large studios than for hobbyists or indie game studios.
3) PBR doesn't have default textures. It's just a shader. You're thinking of the presets in quixel or substance. It's ok to use presets but they're also useful as examples to make your own.
Thanks for the clarification.
I was under the impression that the PBR workflow was scanned data specifically used for these tools and do a lot of background work you cannot traditionally do with textures but it makes alot of sense.
I did make and use my own variants then their default presets but they did have a bunch of great textures. So that means if I add my own texture in there, the quixel shader will give that texture the same properties to play with? Also assuming substance will do the same and I will look it up after this.
Anyways, I appreciate the feedback and will feel more comfortable diving into new things. There are just so many tools out there its hard to decide what to spend time on and what may be a waste but in this case, it doesnt sound bad to learn as much as you can because that may be useful.
Its a hard industry to stay in, so my main concern is if sticking to the traditional ways is best because there is always room for improvement or spend more time learning the new stuff because traditional may become obsolete long term.
When it comes to texturing,learning Designer or Photoshop will give you all the skills you need.Both softwares require you to have a solid understanding of how texturing works before having great reasults.
Substance Painter and Quixel Suite are more easier to understand,and i wouldn't recommand them as a start for learning how to create textures,but that's just me.
I definitely agree with that statement. I have a solid understanding of traditional Photoshop texturing. However, there's always that extra bag of tricks you have to look for to get something done quicker. From what I've seen, Substance and Quixel sort of eliminate having to look further for that extra detail quick workflow when they do it pretty much seamlessly and effortless.
But piggybacking back on what you said, if you dont know what you are doing in photoshop, chances are quixel and substance will not make it any better.