Agree, is not much of a tutorial

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?

Who woulda thunk!!

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?!

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'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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry if my question is dumb,but I can not find any program produce vector displacement map other than Zbrush

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.

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)

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'.

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.

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

XD

HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT WORKED

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.

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

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.

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.