This quick tutorial is a blessing in disguise, I don't know half of whats happening so I have to explore and figure out what everything does while following the guide of the tutorial, which is much more memorable than following a step by step by step tutorial
I never thought of making textures like this. Amazing. Since I work with Substance, figuring out the height blend stuff was a little more challenging, but now I know how to use them.
As a kid i always went around a video game just looking at stuff. With the same question. Man, I wonder who went around and added these tiny cracks in every brick? There all different. Or this little spec right here? Or this tiny chip in the paint. Who painted all this stuff like this?..paint as in you got to be a good artist with drawing and painting abilities. Now it seems like every game is just an up loaded brick wall strentched across a board. Many times have i found myself just staring at a tiny pebble on the ground for tens of minutes. Just wondering who drew it and how can I be a good drawer like this guy.
Is there a link to the exports or another video showing how this comes together in Unreal? This is using 2D info for geometry displacement at an extreme level. So would be great to see how this translates and how a material instance needs to be tweaked to get it to show right in Unreal
SOME PEOPLE CANT APPRECIATE OR SEE THE TRUE MEANING OF THIS VIDEO. MODELING IT IS MUCH EASIER BUT IT SHOWS THAT THE PROGRAM IS REALLY POWERFUL. AND YOU ACTUALLY USE YOUR HEAD YOULL SEE HOW GOOD QUIXEL MIXER IS.
Should look very good, but displacement is somewhat processing heavy. It'd be better to make a base model and texture it in my opinion, and 3d painting feature is coming to mixer in the future, so that you don't have to work just on a plane.
@@z3dar I can't imagine that using a simple plane model with only 4 vertices and those materials requires more power than using a 3d model which uses the same materials but has a greater polycount.
@@manollobango Graphics cards are really good at rendering faces nowadays, so the optimisations are better left elsewhere than vertices, of course situation may vary and less vertices is always better for performance. Basically it's a trade-off between memory capacity and computing performance and modern computers are way more memory- than processing-limited. Maybe you've noticed that new graphics cards are made with massive amounts of video memory: in couple years we've gone from 4-6gb to 10-16gb of VRAM. High-res textures and multi-layered complex shaders are the main reason for that. To make the displacement look good the material first has to have high-res textures, some maps like normal and displacement prefer 16- or 32-bit maps(way larger file sizes). Then for lighting and reflections the game engine still has to calculate the rays bouncing from the tesselated/displaced surface, although there probably are heavy optimisations involved in those calculations. And what I meant by base model is a simplified low-poly model like games use all the time; they're not 'four vertices', but still only few hundreds. It's a great compromise between both solutions and will look good even without displacement, but can look even better with it.
Manollo Bango Either those 4 vertices get tesselated to an even higher polycount than an optimized 3d mesh or it wont look even close to what you see in the video. This is just 10 times quicker than modeling the same thing with LODs... Tesselation is way more expensive than switching through custom LODs while it basically emulates the same thing. The Problem is that tesselation cant subdivide a mesh as neat and optimized as a moddeler can. The triangles have to exist for you to see them... it comes natural that your own built models are way easier on performance than an intelligent algorythm that tries to create the same thing from just 4 vertices in realtime.
@@benhardwiesner6963 While I agree qith you, there are optimisations you can do with the tesselation algorithm, as well as rendering the tesselated meshes, so I don't think it's always quite that clear cut but in general you're right.
The more I look at this, the more I see how good this is - yet - a ton of extra work is required. Such as at about 9:00 into the video where he raises the bricks.. It would be SO useful if there was a mask applied already that would let you just use a slider to increase the height instead of manually painting. Again........ and again.. and again..
I was thinking the same thing. I think if a little more work in Photoshop was done, ie. creating a few masks for just that purpose, you could adjust things in Mixer faster. I guess they didn't want to do to much work in Photoshop because they are now the competition, lol. But if you think about it, you could spend more time in the beginning in Photoshop setting up some masks and then you would have a lot more flexibility in Mixer down the road.
@@HeinousAnusOG since you're lucky enough to be living in the present, you should know that this feature has recently been released as part of the unreal engine x quixel partnership.
@@letsdeuxthis i am lucky to be living in the present! too bad for the other guys who are clearly deceased this far into the future. poor souls it has been released? how can i access this functionality?
Very interesting, and great video. Just curious, but is there a way to export and import the material into Unreal Engine without losing the displacement parameters straight out of the box? When I import a similar material from Bridge, I get the displacement texture, but it looks like the material itself doesn’t include any info for the displacement parameters or tessellation controls, and that a new material needs to be setup by hand.
Hello. I'm trying for six hours and I CANNOT repeat the steps that you've done in photoshop. How can I learn your project if I cannot repeat the photoshop steps? Help me please to create the photosop base for this lesson. I will try to do everything further in this lesson. Thanks in advance.
I suppose this is a response to the Substance Designer trend that suggests delegating modeling to classic old Displacement workflows. Here we see someone doing exactly what some do in Substance Designer, but in a more artist friendly way. Which is really cool. Bravo. Using displacement tessellation extensively in your scene is not such a great idea though. Although super creative and fun, it's still too much resource intensive.
Hey man, this is interesting, What you are saying is that modeling with displacement is more consuming on graphic processing, than if i model the actual window?
It depends on your model and the platform you plan to publish, but yeah, in general geometry these days is cheaper than hardware tessellation and displacement shaders. A mix of both worlds is the better approach imo.
thats what he said and I am sure that small part of a wall would need 100.000 polys to look okayish if not more... now Imagine a whole building with it xD
I'm not sure I understand exactly how the vertical gradient is being aligned to the window shape to achieve the foreshortening of the bevels. It's not that an identical shape is being blended on top with shorter bevels, the vertical bevels are aligned with interior ends of the window bevels to replace them(?)
This is great and all, but the one problem that I'm seeing while experimenting with displacements in Mixer, which wasn't addressed in this tutorial, is the stretching of the texture maps along the inside edges of the displacement maps! In traditional modeling that problem is fixed with the UV's, how can this be addressed with Mixer? Cause I see it as a problem! Would love an answer because other than that, Mixer is pretty great!!
This is not really meant to be used in games like this. At least in my opinion this is just a showcase on how far you can go with mixer. In games you need geometry for collisions and displacement materials are costly to performance anyways. I'll use this in game engine for wall and ground textures for now at least and Quixel Suite for custom model texturing. Quixel is working on 3d painting for Mixer though!
I recently got Mixer and am enjoying it, one question I have is if there will ever be a mirror setting for brushes so instead of checking to make sure the columns are even you could just do it on one side and it would mirror it over
This is impressive, However being a Quixel Suite user I am curious as to when we may be able to import Our models and texture them as we did in the suite? Although the creation method here seems to be a big step forward it is also 3 steps backward as we cannot work on our actual models "Unless their is a way and i have not seen this as of yet".
That is coming. I was told that Quixell Suite is being incorporated into Mixer very soon. Quixel Suite will go away and Mixer will become a stand-alone app with full 3D painting. Makes sense seeing as Allegorithmic was bought up by Adobe. Quixel can't really continue to run on the back of Photoshop anymore as it is now the competition. So a standalone Mixer makes sense and is needed.
@@1Robertwaterworth : I have been using mixer since i posted here. I can see that Ndo is a little bit incorporated already and they have a few filters in there also. They definitely need some kind of move tool "Yes you can tile to move". that way we can import other textures say a pile of rocks, place wherever we want, scale etc. I hope they incorporate all that was in the suite. I am very impressed with the export retaining a very high quality. I notice a big lag going from 4k to 8k also and my machine can handle very complex models, textures and such np. hopefully they will address that also... in the end i think i will be very pleased with the new improved version as long as i had stated i can bring in my models, otherwise this is useless.
Is there a way to render this with vray or renderman using displacement? ~ is there a way to extract the displaced mesh so that it resembles scan data?
I have a question! How to export displacement?! With Parralax? Normal map is not good way to recreate something like displacement. How it works in Unreal Engine?
A 3D model is a lot less expensive. This method requires POM+a densely tessellated mesh+more complicated shader. Also, displacement in real-time is a massive memory footprint.
@@musashidanmcgrath in some game engine or software that relies baking. But in some game engine like Cryengine it is not. Because Cryengine has a very good realtime capabilities.
Definitely good, compared to that it is free, but it is so tedious compared to Substance Designer. Combining a stack of basic shapes would improve the workflow avoiding more of the manual painting procedures
Can i get that textures you made in the video? i wanna test it out in UE4 .. most of the times a thing look something else in the native program.. but doesnt look good in the engine.
This is great but I'm wondering about one thing, what is the use case for such a complex mix? How would I use this in a game engine? It would require expensive tesselation to look good. Is it menat to be remeshed?
1- You can use the resulting texture maps as a base to model a low-poly mesh. You will quickly end up with a nice modular mesh. 2- You can simply use the material on a plane. If it's far from the camera no one's gonna notice it's just a textured plane. For both of those options you don't really need the displacement map (which is what actually depends on tesselation). Just normal map should give you the detail you need.
What format do you upload from photoshop into mixer...is it an svg. or..? or can you do the same stuff in illustrator, inkscape etc and upload it to mixer..?
Between designer and mixer I feel like within the next few to several years general modelers will obsolete lol. Great video though, and keep up the awesome work!
Yeah I’m fucked, websites like 3D Sky have killed my worth. I’m 8 years out of uni and tired of having to learn new software just to keep at the same level. I can’t hate on it though, it’s brilliant stuff, it just means those above you, often with less ability will make more money off your persistent struggle.
Well they wont, models have collision, and more properly work with lightmaps and global illumination, displacement doesnt generate any collision in game engines and lightmap baked before verts are moved. Decals also ignore parallax effect from wall atm. Anyway why not use both methods, not just one or the other. The window as model, but parallax on bricks.
@@Chris-jo1zr You are not fucked, the opposite in fact. 3d models and graphics are becoming more and more important to the society. It used to be mostly for high quality entertainment and industrial manufacturing, but soon it'll be in peoples homes with 3d printers and VR and AR. The demand for 3d models(unique ones especially) is surely going up, while creating them is getting easier. It doesn't mean that you're fucked if basic props are getting sold at $5, it means that the time for basic shit is over, but you have already gathered the skills to create anything anyone can imagine and learn any 3d software quickly(and you'll have to, so get used to it. Rather than look at it as a drag, take it as a game where you differentiate the programs differences and principles in your head). More importantly you understand the principles of 3d graphics(I hope), which means that all of those chumps you want to have their pet digitalized or their automatic 3d scan fixed for printing, they'll need a proper 3d expert. In short, the 3d field is going mainstream with public starting to get into it, which means more jobs for 3d experts and more automatic tools.
3ds max is comprehensive 3d software(and maya is better), while Quixel Mixer is literally just an advanced bitmap/material editor. You have a square plane(a texture map) that you can paint on, combine and customize different texture maps(albedo, specular, displacement, etc), but mixer doesn't actually produce any 3d models, just textures that can be used to "fake" a 3d surface when rendered. They are adding 3d painting into mixer later, after which it'll work for custom model texturing too, not just on a 'plane'.
Cool, but how do I buy it? Please don't tell me you've switched to an evil Subscription only model? Also, Why can't I download Quixel suit 2 from your website even though I have a valid license for it? Is that license trash now?
John Doe not sure what engine you’re referencing so fair play. I do cinema/octane so as far as setup it’s flat plains, which is amazing for viewport speed :)
You donèt need Photoshop. You can use any app that will let you manipulate images. he only used Photoshop at the beginning for a very simple task. He made a basic black rectangle with a blurred edge. You can do that with most any free image editing programs out there.
Texture painting like that is NOT easier in blender.. ROFL.. Maybe if i wanted to model a low poly version of that to avoid tessellation yes blender :P but phft gimme a break the PBR workflow and masking abilities are good just not there yet
Doing it straight in Mixer in this case was faster and easier than jumping into a 3D package to first model, then bake out maps, and finally bring it back in for texturing. Results are what matter at the end of the day :)
@PrefoX well I can do all those things (as well as baking displacement map) at least 3 times faster with blender and sd/sp. I pity u if your skill is so low you actually need an app like the one in the video to be good at anything.
This quick tutorial is a blessing in disguise, I don't know half of whats happening so I have to explore and figure out what everything does while following the guide of the tutorial, which is much more memorable than following a step by step by step tutorial
I love how materials can be simply applied to the surface of an object (like a sphere 14:59) and imediately look so cool !
That's insane!!!! Saving so much resources too since there is no geo in that entire facade. Incredible.
I never thought of making textures like this. Amazing. Since I work with Substance, figuring out the height blend stuff was a little more challenging, but now I know how to use them.
Thank you! It's great to get an insight into how these are made :) I keep seeing Wiktor's posts wondering how they are done XD
This is very impressive! You can do some amazing things with Mixer.
That looks incredible.
You blew my mind 🤯🤯🤯
As a kid i always went around a video game just looking at stuff. With the same question. Man, I wonder who went around and added these tiny cracks in every brick? There all different. Or this little spec right here? Or this tiny chip in the paint. Who painted all this stuff like this?..paint as in you got to be a good artist with drawing and painting abilities. Now it seems like every game is just an up loaded brick wall strentched across a board. Many times have i found myself just staring at a tiny pebble on the ground for tens of minutes. Just wondering who drew it and how can I be a good drawer like this guy.
Watching this as the first tutorial... was not a good idea ;D
Agree, is not much of a tutorial
Is there a link to the exports or another video showing how this comes together in Unreal? This is using 2D info for geometry displacement at an extreme level. So would be great to see how this translates and how a material instance needs to be tweaked to get it to show right in Unreal
I'd love to see how you did some of the Sci Fi materials you've posted before
SOME PEOPLE CANT APPRECIATE OR SEE THE TRUE MEANING OF THIS VIDEO. MODELING IT IS MUCH EASIER BUT IT SHOWS THAT THE PROGRAM IS REALLY POWERFUL. AND YOU ACTUALLY USE YOUR HEAD YOULL SEE HOW GOOD QUIXEL MIXER IS.
Holy fuck how I love this program
Epic Games: *"It's free real estate."*
Adobe entered and left the chat.
I couldn't wait do drop substance painter, thank god for the 2021 update.
@@___Goose yea same case with me also. I've been using mixer since beta and I love that they didn't make it paid after the beta.
@@atharvgogia6841 can i ask a question? Can i import some blender models here in quixel and texture it here?
Amazing hard to believe its just material and textures.. but how does it look inside a game engine I wonder..
Should look very good, but displacement is somewhat processing heavy. It'd be better to make a base model and texture it in my opinion, and 3d painting feature is coming to mixer in the future, so that you don't have to work just on a plane.
@@z3dar
I can't imagine that using a simple plane model with only 4 vertices and those materials requires more power than using a 3d model which uses the same materials but has a greater polycount.
@@manollobango Graphics cards are really good at rendering faces nowadays, so the optimisations are better left elsewhere than vertices, of course situation may vary and less vertices is always better for performance.
Basically it's a trade-off between memory capacity and computing performance and modern computers are way more memory- than processing-limited. Maybe you've noticed that new graphics cards are made with massive amounts of video memory: in couple years we've gone from 4-6gb to 10-16gb of VRAM. High-res textures and multi-layered complex shaders are the main reason for that.
To make the displacement look good the material first has to have high-res textures, some maps like normal and displacement prefer 16- or 32-bit maps(way larger file sizes).
Then for lighting and reflections the game engine still has to calculate the rays bouncing from the tesselated/displaced surface, although there probably are heavy optimisations involved in those calculations.
And what I meant by base model is a simplified low-poly model like games use all the time; they're not 'four vertices', but still only few hundreds. It's a great compromise between both solutions and will look good even without displacement, but can look even better with it.
Manollo Bango Either those 4 vertices get tesselated to an even higher polycount than an optimized 3d mesh or it wont look even close to what you see in the video.
This is just 10 times quicker than modeling the same thing with LODs... Tesselation is way more expensive than switching through custom LODs while it basically emulates the same thing. The Problem is that tesselation cant subdivide a mesh as neat and optimized as a moddeler can.
The triangles have to exist for you to see them... it comes natural that your own built models are way easier on performance than an intelligent algorythm that tries to create the same thing from just 4 vertices in realtime.
@@benhardwiesner6963 While I agree qith you, there are optimisations you can do with the tesselation algorithm, as well as rendering the tesselated meshes, so I don't think it's always quite that clear cut but in general you're right.
I didn't even know mixer could do this. Damn this is cool. Just missing a shot from this material in UE or a render.
MIND BLOWING!
Very good showcase of the program, but as a tutorial, I feel this missed the mark as many sections were glossed over or not fully explained.
The more I look at this, the more I see how good this is - yet - a ton of extra work is required. Such as at about 9:00 into the video where he raises the bricks.. It would be SO useful if there was a mask applied already that would let you just use a slider to increase the height instead of manually painting. Again........ and again.. and again..
I was thinking the same thing. I think if a little more work in Photoshop was done, ie. creating a few masks for just that purpose, you could adjust things in Mixer faster. I guess they didn't want to do to much work in Photoshop because they are now the competition, lol. But if you think about it, you could spend more time in the beginning in Photoshop setting up some masks and then you would have a lot more flexibility in Mixer down the road.
So this is how the megascan buildings we made
its like magic. thank you so much.
Really great stuff. I wonder how it performs (memory, GPU and CPU wise) in comparison to using a 3d package like Max, Maya or Zbrush etc?
Looks cool!
wow... Amazing
Will there ever be a time when an artist can import custom 3d models into Mixer?
I asked this in an email, and they said they've been working on 3d painting for mixer. Didn't give release date or anything, but it's coming.
cannot wait :D
@@HeinousAnusOG since you're lucky enough to be living in the present, you should know that this feature has recently been released as part of the unreal engine x quixel partnership.
@@letsdeuxthis i am lucky to be living in the present! too bad for the other guys who are clearly deceased this far into the future. poor souls
it has been released? how can i access this functionality?
@@letsdeuxthis Excuse me? Is this... True?!
now this is epic
Who woulda thunk!!
This can come in very handy in rendering , similar usage to vray pattern plugin of iCube.
awesome!! i want more videos on quixel mixer plz!
Very interesting, and great video. Just curious, but is there a way to export and import the material into Unreal Engine without losing the displacement parameters straight out of the box? When I import a similar material from Bridge, I get the displacement texture, but it looks like the material itself doesn’t include any info for the displacement parameters or tessellation controls, and that a new material needs to be setup by hand.
Hello. I'm trying for six hours and I CANNOT repeat the steps that you've done in photoshop. How can I learn your project if I cannot repeat the photoshop steps? Help me please to create the photosop base for this lesson. I will try to do everything further in this lesson. Thanks in advance.
this is almost trippy.
Amazing
So like, could you apply this to a plane mesh and just drive the depth with the displacement value?
Well, first of all, it looks great :)
Having said that, no vector shapes? (aka paths)
thats great but is it seamless?
I suppose this is a response to the Substance Designer trend that suggests delegating modeling to classic old Displacement workflows. Here we see someone doing exactly what some do in Substance Designer, but in a more artist friendly way. Which is really cool. Bravo. Using displacement tessellation extensively in your scene is not such a great idea though. Although super creative and fun, it's still too much resource intensive.
Hey man, this is interesting, What you are saying is that modeling with displacement is more consuming on graphic processing, than if i model the actual window?
It depends on your model and the platform you plan to publish, but yeah, in general geometry these days is cheaper than hardware tessellation and displacement shaders. A mix of both worlds is the better approach imo.
thats what he said and I am sure that small part of a wall would need 100.000 polys to look okayish if not more... now Imagine a whole building with it xD
@@PrefoX how would you approach mixing
You can make it look awesome with a lot less polygons, and normal maps. But will not be as fast and simple to create. One day! I look forward to it.
I'm not sure I understand exactly how the vertical gradient is being aligned to the window shape to achieve the foreshortening of the bevels. It's not that an identical shape is being blended on top with shorter bevels, the vertical bevels are aligned with interior ends of the window bevels to replace them(?)
This is great and all, but the one problem that I'm seeing while experimenting with displacements in Mixer, which wasn't addressed in this tutorial, is the stretching of the texture maps along the inside edges of the displacement maps! In traditional modeling that problem is fixed with the UV's, how can this be addressed with Mixer? Cause I see it as a problem! Would love an answer because other than that, Mixer is pretty great!!
I'm guessing tri-planar projection.
This is not really meant to be used in games like this. At least in my opinion this is just a showcase on how far you can go with mixer. In games you need geometry for collisions and displacement materials are costly to performance anyways.
I'll use this in game engine for wall and ground textures for now at least and Quixel Suite for custom model texturing.
Quixel is working on 3d painting for Mixer though!
Quixel no.1!
beautiful!
I recently got Mixer and am enjoying it, one question I have is if there will ever be a mirror setting for brushes so instead of checking to make sure the columns are even you could just do it on one side and it would mirror it over
Can you 3D print with the texture still showing in the STL?
It's awesome💪
can i paint 3d model, which file type import should i use for blender to mixer?
mindblowing
at 11:07 you use a glasse material but in the latest version it's not there anymore
awesome!
I need a pretty dense mesh for this material right?
This is impressive, However being a Quixel Suite user I am curious as to when we may be able to import Our models and texture them as we did in the suite? Although the creation method here seems to be a big step forward it is also 3 steps backward as we cannot work on our actual models "Unless their is a way and i have not seen this as of yet".
That is coming. I was told that Quixell Suite is being incorporated into Mixer very soon. Quixel Suite will go away and Mixer will become a stand-alone app with full 3D painting. Makes sense seeing as Allegorithmic was bought up by Adobe. Quixel can't really continue to run on the back of Photoshop anymore as it is now the competition. So a standalone Mixer makes sense and is needed.
@@1Robertwaterworth : I have been using mixer since i posted here. I can see that Ndo is a little bit incorporated already and they have a few filters in there also. They definitely need some kind of move tool "Yes you can tile to move". that way we can import other textures say a pile of rocks, place wherever we want, scale etc. I hope they incorporate all that was in the suite. I am very impressed with the export retaining a very high quality. I notice a big lag going from 4k to 8k also and my machine can handle very complex models, textures and such np. hopefully they will address that also... in the end i think i will be very pleased with the new improved version as long as i had stated i can bring in my models, otherwise this is useless.
Can you tell us what did you use for the final render image, for the material sphere and flat surface image at the end. Marmoset?
Is there a way to render this with vray or renderman using displacement? ~ is there a way to extract the displaced mesh so that it resembles scan data?
I have a question! How to export displacement?! With Parralax? Normal map is not good way to recreate something like displacement. How it works in Unreal Engine?
is quixel mixer shutting down? im trying to use the software but im having issues using some materials and i dont see any updates with the program.
I really wonder how exactly this would look like in an engine, in comparision to the same made as a regular 3D model and what is more performant.
A 3D model is a lot less expensive. This method requires POM+a densely tessellated mesh+more complicated shader. Also, displacement in real-time is a massive memory footprint.
@@musashidanmcgrath in some game engine or software that relies baking. But in some game engine like Cryengine it is not. Because Cryengine has a very good realtime capabilities.
When I will do this quality of texturing
Is there another possibility to creat the window without P.S?
Okay but like then how do I use that in Unreal? Literally like place that sucker on a plane??
Maaaaannn what a tool!!! TKS Epic Games s2
Definitely good, compared to that it is free, but it is so tedious compared to Substance Designer. Combining a stack of basic shapes would improve the workflow avoiding more of the manual painting procedures
noob question - Wouldn't it be easier to make all the windows displacment maps in photoshop, as you did with the first window frame map?
Can i get that textures you made in the video? i wanna test it out in UE4 .. most of the times a thing look something else in the native program.. but doesnt look good in the engine.
you can make it yourself. as for why quixel doesnt look good in ue4, the normal maps are open gl, not dx11. you need to flip y channel
ah ok I got it :)
Also dont forget to disable sRGB for roughness.
HOW THE HELL IS THAT A TEXTURE LOL, it looks better than most full 3d models wtf did i just watch this is serious black magic
I'm not sure that this is "gameready". Actually modelling all this this would be substantially better for performance than using tessellation.
This is great but I'm wondering about one thing, what is the use case for such a complex mix? How would I use this in a game engine? It would require expensive tesselation to look good. Is it menat to be remeshed?
1- You can use the resulting texture maps as a base to model a low-poly mesh. You will quickly end up with a nice modular mesh.
2- You can simply use the material on a plane. If it's far from the camera no one's gonna notice it's just a textured plane.
For both of those options you don't really need the displacement map (which is what actually depends on tesselation). Just normal map should give you the detail you need.
I have a question: Will Mixer Support Vector Displacement one day? @Quixel
Sorry if my question is dumb,but I can not find any program produce vector displacement map other than Zbrush
How to use this in 3d?
What is your computer model?
WOW
He was exporting for unity
What format do you upload from photoshop into mixer...is it an svg. or..? or can you do the same stuff in illustrator, inkscape etc and upload it to mixer..?
Between designer and mixer I feel like within the next few to several years general modelers will obsolete lol. Great video though, and keep up the awesome work!
Yeah I’m fucked, websites like 3D Sky have killed my worth. I’m 8 years out of uni and tired of having to learn new software just to keep at the same level. I can’t hate on it though, it’s brilliant stuff, it just means those above you, often with less ability will make more money off your persistent struggle.
ahh yes!!
try to make robot or car with designer or mixer
Well they wont, models have collision, and more properly work with lightmaps and global illumination, displacement doesnt generate any collision in game engines and lightmap baked before verts are moved.
Decals also ignore parallax effect from wall atm.
Anyway why not use both methods, not just one or the other. The window as model, but parallax on bricks.
@@Chris-jo1zr You are not fucked, the opposite in fact. 3d models and graphics are becoming more and more important to the society. It used to be mostly for high quality entertainment and industrial manufacturing, but soon it'll be in peoples homes with 3d printers and VR and AR.
The demand for 3d models(unique ones especially) is surely going up, while creating them is getting easier. It doesn't mean that you're fucked if basic props are getting sold at $5, it means that the time for basic shit is over, but you have already gathered the skills to create anything anyone can imagine and learn any 3d software quickly(and you'll have to, so get used to it. Rather than look at it as a drag, take it as a game where you differentiate the programs differences and principles in your head). More importantly you understand the principles of 3d graphics(I hope), which means that all of those chumps you want to have their pet digitalized or their automatic 3d scan fixed for printing, they'll need a proper 3d expert.
In short, the 3d field is going mainstream with public starting to get into it, which means more jobs for 3d experts and more automatic tools.
Holy F. Are you using this is a tesselation material in UE4?
Lots of game engines use tessellation, problem is, it can't be entirely relied on.
@@JayJapanB why?
because it costs too much resources. thats why games as Battlefield or star wars just use it for the ground and just like 10 meters.
POM is used instead of displacement, it's cheaper (but looks a little more crappier from close range)
holy crap
大家好，我为这个视频翻译了一份中文字幕，请大家帮忙审核通过以下
Hello there, I did a Chinese translation for this video, anyone here knows Chinese please help me verify it, Thanks.
whats better this or 3ds max?
you can't compare both programs... its like, whats better, radio or internet
internet, but i get what u mean
3ds max is comprehensive 3d software(and maya is better), while Quixel Mixer is literally just an advanced bitmap/material editor. You have a square plane(a texture map) that you can paint on, combine and customize different texture maps(albedo, specular, displacement, etc), but mixer doesn't actually produce any 3d models, just textures that can be used to "fake" a 3d surface when rendered.
They are adding 3d painting into mixer later, after which it'll work for custom model texturing too, not just on a 'plane'.
说句实话，很厉害，这样我完全可以放弃在ps里面做材质了（因为更方便）
Damnnn!
dislikes are from ADOBE employees
XD
Cool, but how do I buy it? Please don't tell me you've switched to an evil Subscription only model? Also, Why can't I download Quixel suit 2 from your website even though I have a valid license for it? Is that license trash now?
At this point is just to prove that is possible. Making the 3D model would be faster...
John Doe however a single texture is less heavy than physical geometry. All this for 1 polygon, heck yea.
well, this is displaced. you wont get all the height detail unless you are using a tesselated mesh. the normal map cant sell that extreme of a depth.
Ahahah a lot of polygons actually, displace with that kind of precision takes many tesselation levels...
John Doe not sure what engine you’re referencing so fair play. I do cinema/octane so as far as setup it’s flat plains, which is amazing for viewport speed :)
Sometimes it's not about speed but getting extremely realistic... work on model and texture at same time here
as an architect and 3d modeller that looks painful,,, interesting but painful
so i cant really follow along because i dont have photoshop.... ugh
You donèt need Photoshop. You can use any app that will let you manipulate images. he only used Photoshop at the beginning for a very simple task. He made a basic black rectangle with a blurred edge. You can do that with most any free image editing programs out there.
Mixer.... Created with unity xD and it Crashes everytime.... Missed a unity***.dll
can you just let us download the pictures please?
"Inside Photoshop." Me: Time to go watch a different tutorial.
Watch next : "sculpt a girlfriend in mixer"
HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT WORKED
Second
Any chance the industry standards shifted away from this decay-postapoc treatment of textures for games?
Make mixer yo work on linux pls, like bridge.....pls, pls, pls....i use substance painter but realy won use mixer and its free.....
*cough*easierinblenderjusayin*cough*
Texture painting like that is NOT easier in blender.. ROFL.. Maybe if i wanted to model a low poly version of that to avoid tessellation yes blender :P but phft gimme a break the PBR workflow and masking abilities are good just not there yet
!!!!!!!!!!!! waht
Easier just to 3D model it.
Which software
The guy just "sculpted" a material. This is more important than Elon Musk's weed-smoking moment.
Me: Cancels PornHub Subscription
This takes too long
why dont you make the window model in any 3D software damn. looks cheap and lazy.
Anyways the result is great lol.
Because it's about showing what the software can do, and honestly the result is pretty acceptable.
Doing it straight in Mixer in this case was faster and easier than jumping into a 3D package to first model, then bake out maps, and finally bring it back in for texturing. Results are what matter at the end of the day :)
looks cheap? and lazy? are you just stupid or just crazy?
ummm i know thats not the truth... i use both so i know....
BECAUSE ITS THEIR TOOL AND THEY WANT TO SELL IT? my fucking yoda.. get some brain.
this looks awful. All of this could have been done 15 times faster in blender and SP
whats SP?
@@Sacheen I guess SP refers to substance painter
I'd like to watch how you can bake all of that with photoreal textures In 1 minute. Go for it.
well he has obviously no clue at all... doing that in blender, means modeling, UV unwrapping and texturing would take way more time.
@PrefoX well I can do all those things (as well as baking displacement map) at least 3 times faster with blender and sd/sp. I pity u if your skill is so low you actually need an app like the one in the video to be good at anything.