Maybe you can switch between the two and have him covered in sores as he gets hurt?

@@lelduck6388 I thought of this after. I could see like a tearable mesh, or when parts of it get hit those parts get removed. Idk how complicated that is considering you would have to have 2 models layered on top of each other.

Bruising aswell!

It would maybe be cool to make the skin gross (bruising, bloating) rather then wounds

Exaaactly like me I want to learn substance designer Do u know that you can make a material like hand painted and works with every object you use This will save hundreds of hours 😭

@@allawi8120 I made a graph that does exactly this. I used it for all the textures in my game.

Glad I could help!

Agreed -- programmer turned [bad] artist here, but despite this, I nearly gave up rigging. It's not you. Historically, things are this bad because 3D file formats were treated like trade secrets -- Blender only got attention long term because, being OSS, a lot of the format problems were solvable by random people. However, Blender seems to be the least usable, and that's unlikely to change. It has roots in Amiga and attracts almost exclusively sqaure-eyed developers, so almost all of its problems were intentionally programmed for "reasons"... good luck explaining to these guys that leaning on Python was the wrong choice. When you move to Max/Maya, however, you pay more, lose a ton of customization for workflow, and are stuck with Autodesk, so Blender still winds up being "better" in a lot of cases. If you move to the sculpting apps, getting your mesh exported in a format that isn't damaged becomes an exercise of working around limitations and guess work. Argh! But I'm a newbstick and have no idea what's out there these days, maybe you'll get a helpful comment instead of this peanut gallery BS from me ;)

@@dx3910 that's weird I've only ever heard people sing blender's praises when it comes to rigging, saw some professional say they would export from Maya to blender for rigging then send it back to Maya for animation. I started mucking around with Max in the late 2000s n rigging was a nightmare, at least for me because I couldn't find many guides so I used shortcuts n got janky results. I've only been back to 3d and using blender for like 7 months or something but my experience is rigging is incredibly Easy for the most part, the only real problem I've had is not knowing the right terms to search for solutions.. "bone direction wrong blender" gives you a loooooot of animation results

@@drumboarder1 You could very easily be right that Blender is best in class -- I wouldn't know how to compare. What I do know is that 20+ years of using complex software development tools like Visual Studio to build entire back-end systems was LESS taxing on my brain than the mechanical busy-work Blender makes you go through. Sure, after 7 months of using this one program, you'll know all the keyboard shortcuts by heart and most of the weird UI decisions won't get in the way anymore. But what about the rest of us, who don't have most of our lives to dedicate to a single craft? 3D shouldn't be an expert skill, it should be accessible to everyone. Developer tools don't rely on icons, randomly floating buttons, hidden menus, and invisible keyboard shortcuts... but 3D programs get a pass for being special in this regard. I like to pick on Blender because it's the jankiest in terms of usability. Just take the scene hierarchy, the default panel on the right side. It's useless. Right-clicks reveal nothing useful. Delete doesn't actually delete. Multi-select within the window is somehow *different* from multi-selecting in the viewport. And OK, if you have 7 months to get used to this stuff, it's fine I guess -- but it's really not fine, lol.

@@dx3910 I'll give you that it's janky in ways but far less janky than Max was when I used it, after about a week of blender I was much happier than I ever was with Max (which I used on n off for a few years basically learning by trial n error). I'm not a 3d artist or anything, only ever dabbled like I do with photoshop (now gimp), music design (reaper, the others I've hated) making whatever mods for games (you want jank? Random modding tools deliver that in spades), etc. 3d software is complicated because it's able to do so many things, if you want something basic then you'll have to find something very specific, maybe mudbox that's exclusively sculpting, I only tried it in 09 for 15 minutes before my PC exploded but there wasn't a whole lot going on. People say mixamo can automatically rig for you, maybe give that a go. While blender definitely has its flaws, it needs to be complicated in order to be useful

How complex was your model? If you're just getting into 3D I would keep it simple and do something basic even if it is a bit boring compared to your 2D creations!

Can I ask you what you mean with multiple UV sets? out of curiosity, since Substance painter has texture set support and UDIM support. I have a 3dsmax to Substance workflow and substance painter separates UV's in different layers if you assign materials to your texture sets. Or do you mean something else?

Substance painter supports udims. And it has been supporting painting across udims for quite a while. And if your not talking about udims and actual different objects with their own material, substance also lets you work with that. Treats each material as it’s own layer group

@@bobsteven2363 no. not UDIMs. Multiple UV sets. Different UV coordinates for same vertices, same exact triangles. Very helpful feature for game assets creation. For example, you have police car. Left and right sides can't be overlapped because of text on base color. But geometrically they are exactly the same. So for normal map car can be unwrapped differently, with multiple overlaps (left side on top of right), which allow you to get much better texel density with same resolution. It allows you to use smaller normal map (comparing to base color) in game engine for same quality, or get better shading while texture size unchanged. Works even better on asset packs with multiple similar elements: that technic allows to maximize texel density and variability at the same time.

@@Eyks001 So are you saying that you make a normal map for one model with stacked islands then you transfer that normal map to a model with unstacked islands? Doesn’t the normal map and albedo map have to map to the exact same uv coordinates because every fbx/obj have their Uvs baked in. I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time understanding you. Something I’ve never heard about. As for assets with repeating geometry, you can can stack their uv islands to save space and on substance painter, you can bake and paint them. What you do to one is copied to the next. Hmmm maybe you can show me a video that has what your saying

@@Eyks001 This is somewhere in the backlog (no ETA though)

Actually you can access the community library without subscription (just an account). You may talk about Substance 3D Assets which are materials made by us.

Agreed. One can achieve similar results directly in Blender, with a bit more finagling. Thanks to Blender's open source team.

@@LarsVision yes...exactly

Can't project brush strokes properly though.

@@BoroCG so strange how the texture painting brush doesn't work like that, thankfull the sculpt brush does tho! xd

youd be surprised. the convenience of substance is how it corrals you into a workflow with no other options. you can mimic that workflow in other software. personally i dont like their fractal textures or anything, cycles is way cooler but it just takes more to compute because its more complex. substance makes materials that almost look cartoony

@@sadstrongman271 So you blame the tool because some artists using it are lazy and go for the fastest route? That's kinda stupid, you know? You can work with whatever texture you like in Painter and you can generate you own procedural mask and smart materials. Working with procedural shaders in Cycles is not only more compute intensive it also takes 10x longer. It's not even in competition with Painter - its a totally different sport. You want to create surfaces with proceduralism and whatever else in a node base environment? There is Substance Designer which is made for this. Both combined give an artist a serious edge over anybody not using them.

@@RyoMassaki interesting calling my opinion stupid because you dont agree with it, You know? it generally creates inferior looking textures that are more suited for games like overwatch or other stylized games. working with procedural shaders in cycles does not take 10 times longer- or maybe it does if you dont know how to do it. but looking at what his final results are in substance here is proof enough of my point. it looks like people are prioritizing convenience over results. ive used substance, i almost made the full jump over to it years ago. but sticking to cycles has been way more worth it because you can do way way way more with cycles. if you want 2 drag and drop 2 dirt textures and make a cavity map and call it a day thats great you can do that in substance.

@@sadstrongman271 Its a stupid opinion because it is wrong and you are essentially arguing using a fallacy. "It generally creates inferior looking textures" No it does not. Artists who use it may do so. "Garbage in, garbage out" applies. Yes, people are prioritizing convenience over working their ass off - this has always been the case. Blaming the tool for human behavior is just stupid.

@@RyoMassaki sorry baby if i hurt ur feelings :( but just look at the substance designer materials people make if u dont see it u dont see it

@@Notyourbusinesschap the price of the Steam is the same of using 3 months of the subscription. I used it for 3 years. Those features really didn't make a difference to me.

With the baked lighting filter maybe

People still pay for software?

Oh yeah that's interesting to make work. Will let you know if I find a good setup for it

@@BoroCG I would be _very_ grateful, indeed. :) :) But please don't get discouraged if you don't solve it; I've tried a bunch of things... Even tried to find a paid addon or something.

Yeah as I said, it will make the whole app fuzzy, rendered in half-resolution. Which is how I work with it now, but it sure would be better to have full resolution for PAINTING ON A MODEL, ADOBE!

Along with Agama Materials. There's also the Layer Painter add on for Blender.

it's generally 150, but can be modified by Steam depending on the region you live

so my "all apps" subscription.. is NOT all apps. how does that mean "All" lol wtf

I use it with 1050ti. Works fine by me

@@MyKiruha That is _really_ good to know, as I have only made basic projects till now, but the 1050ti is extremely similar to the 1650, so if it is fine in Substance, definitely then both are fine. Thanks!

@@3polygons yeah, so dont wory. I use substance with complex models(5-7 pieces) and a lot of subdivision and it World quite fast. Only one thing needs to say is that tout need a lot of memory 32gb+.

Oooh that looks really close! Maybe actually just about the same, which is awesome, thank you!

The same thing could have been achieved in substance painter itself using a transform filter..

Also yellow spots. May sound lame, but on corpses it looks very real to use actual cadaver decay colors like that

I mean I wouldn't say never. There most definitely are situations where you just want to add some various tiny dirty details without using a ton of layers. Maybe it makes more sense if you're a painter. In any case, I was talking about technical differences in the engines, and the fact that you can set up material properties in the brush at any point instead of having to create another layer every time - I think it's a much more flexible setup

Hi! Um, so what about the upside-down version though? I drew an upside-down pentagram, which is a symbol of satanism, usually visualized with a goat in it. Like, a cross is also not an evil symbol, but an upside-down one is used to describe quite opposite opinions. Right?

Adobe is pure evil, indeed