allegorithmic or quixel

JustColorado

I saw some old threads about this but they seemed inconclusive.
And I really could use some advice on this.

I have been very happy quixel's legacy nDO and dDO
I just finished a project that relied heavily on those 2 tools.
and now I am ready to start in PBR

I was planning to learn Quixel Suite work flow.
So I ignored allegorithmic. But I keep hearing more and more about them.

Things change really fast.
I don't know what the best pipeline is for 2015 and beyond

is it time to learn both?
is Substance really better?
is it time to switch?
or can I get by just as good with quixel?



PS I feel like I am cheating on my wife just asking these questions

Bruno Afonseca

In my personal experience, quixel gives you great results really quick, but it's kinda clunky to work with and not that flexible.
Substance just feels great to me, but it does take a bit of experience to get good results out of it. It's super flexible and you can use it for pretty much anything.
I chose substance for me but quixel 2.0 does look quite sexy, I must say

Joost

Both!

They each have their own benefits. And I think it's a good idea to learn both.

Quixel's great because of its presets and the mask editor. And quixel 2 is a pretty good improvement. When Megascans eventually comes out that will be a very powerful addition as well. It's great at making individual assets look good, Quickly.

Substance is great for automating a pipeline. It's much more flexible and procedural than Quixel. downside is that you'll have to create your own material "presets".
It takes more time, but it's easier to modify your results for other uses.

For a studio I'd probably pick Substance because you can build your whole pipeline around it.
But for portfolio or personal projects I think Quixel is definitely a worthy choice as well.

doolally66

I've been using the Quixel Suite for a few months and as much I like it, I feel that everything I make is more of the same. It is a fantastic tool and very well priced for what it can do though.

I've recently, within the last 2 weeks, started learning Substance Designer (my PC struggles with Painter) and it's much more difficult, but the results I'm getting feel like they are unique and my own. I may be wrong, but there's so many parameters in Designer that making the exact same thing twice would be rare.

The Quixel section on Polycount recently held a texturing competition, and as good as the pieces were that were put forward, only a couple looked truly different. With Substance everything feels unique. Saying all that, I am looking forward to Quixel 2.0. If it offers more variation and parameters to tweak, rather than feeling like a plugin, then it could be a rival.

Quixel is very easy to pick up as it uses everything that Photoshop has to offer, it just does some of the leg work. Substance, I've found, requires patience.

marks

The real question is, which is better, pencil or pen?

GlowingPotato

What i don't like about Quixel is the integration to Photoshop.

Substances is 100% standalone.

As for the final result... its like comparing Max to Maya to Modo to whatever. same thing different buttons.

Cathodeus

I think that Quixel is better for small studio or freelancer while Substance is good for teams as they can share presets. Both are good. Substance is more technical, Quixel more intuitive. Being in photoshop is a plus to me as we can use all super powerfull proven tools and don't have to learn that much in order to start getting expected results.

Aabel

Both are very affordable for the individual artist, so I use both. I prefer to use substance though. Non-destructive, procedural workflows are hard to put down once you get started with them.

xtrm3d

if i may jump in ...
it would be the same as when peoples ask me about maya or blender ...

while blender is a great tool.. ( even if somehow quircky ) , if you want to work in a professional environment , you better use the tools that are part of teh pipeline.. ( and they are for a good reason )

when we talk about substance , i think that it is important to consider .. are we talking about designer or painter ?

designer is light years ahead of any thing you could do in photoshop with ddo , and it is an unfair comparaison as they are not designed to do the same thing ... why compare a super computer to a pocket calaculator ?

now , you could look into painter vs ddo ,
i would suggest to download the demos , and try them ( texture the same asset in both of them )

you should quickly come to realize wich one fit your workflow better , and have the best features :-)

ps* i dislike to deal with plugin that are tied to photoshop/maya or whatever ..everytime you upgrade to the next version ... you can't be sure that the tool would still be working

JustColorado

thank you all for your replies.

i like the suggestion to try making some
textures with both and then decide

like samuel beckett wrote in his play
Waiting For Godot

"I'm curious to hear what he has to offer.
Then we'll take it or leave it."

JustColorado

:poly142: oops posted that 2x

Synaesthesia

I honestly prefer Quixel Suite - and creating Smart Materials is a simple task and they're easily shared amongst my team.

As far as consistency goes, Quixel is hands down the tool I'd use. The 2.0 beta is phenomenal, and the 3D painting is smooth as butter. There's nothing quite like it out there.

If you're seeing "sameness" in textures developed with Quixel products, that's on the artist producing the work - not on the product. ;-)

Edit: I realize it might appear somewhat biased, but these are my honest opinions - I'm volunteer support for Quixel, not paid staff.

Edit 2: I'm now paid staff, but my opinions haven't changed.