/3/ - 3DCG » Thread #496989

[22 / 3 / ?]

59KiB, 640x429, 1309587_3b1c324c.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2015 13:33:59 No.496989 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>496992 >>496996 >>497167 >>497379

What's a good program to bake normal's?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2015 13:40:14 No.496992 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497378

>>496989
>bake normal's?
I haven't done 3d in a while but CrazyBump is good but so can Max, Maya & ZBrush.

There is a far better program than CrazyBump but i can't think of its name.

XNormal

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2015 14:17:56 No.496996 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497008 >>497228 >>497378

>>496989
To bake from mesh? Substance Painter.

To generate from texture? CrazyBump or nDo2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2015 15:29:01 No.497008 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>496996
>To bake from mesh?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2015 17:22:11 No.497167 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497203

>>496989
Why post a picture of a pigeon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 00:41:52 No.497203 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>497167
Why not?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pigeon_NRM.png, 323KiB, 640x429

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 09:58:18 No.497228 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497237 >>497323

>>496996
>CrazyBump

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 10:42:40 No.497237 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497241 >>497242

>>497228
Crazybump is fucking hella outdated and weak compared to modern tools like Substance or nDo2. The algorithms have come a long way since the last time CB was updated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 11:20:11 No.497241 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497243

>>497237
prove. examples.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 11:23:05 No.497242 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>497237
>Crazybump is fucking hella outdated
indeed it is, anon.
it works great for game engine stuff but not much else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 11:25:17 No.497243 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497244

>>497241

It's old and slow compared to the competition, there isn't much to prove. I was great, and it's still good. It's just falling behind.

As artists it's not our jobs to be fanboys, but to use the best tools for the job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 11:26:46 No.497244 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>497243

> I was great, and it's still good. It's just falling behind.

Oops, apologize for the Freudian slip there. It's been a rough couple of years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 22:41:05 No.497323 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497328

>>497228
So, Because no one else has given an example crazy bump is it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2015 23:49:33 No.497328 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497340

>>497323
awesomebump.besaba DOT com

Free, is actually updated for current day workflows and PBR, has many more features and performs faster.

PixPlant is also a great Photoshop plugin that has a 3D viewer with real-time displacement, and is able to auto-generate a tiling version of your texture for you.
http://www.pixplant.com/

nDO2 is great as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Oct 2015 02:47:09 No.497340 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>497328
pictures? specifically pigeon normal's?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pigeon_norm.png, 2MiB, 1024x1024

Anonymous Sat 10 Oct 2015 17:33:41 No.497377 Report Delete

Quoted By:

If you want to generate normals from textures don't you ever touch PixPlant. It has a nice algorithm for creating seamless images from pictures (the pidgeon is not a pattern so it came out shit though), but its normal generator is absolutely fucking shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Oct 2015 17:37:00 No.497378 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497547

>>496992
>>496996

You can't bake normals with Crazybump and on top of that Crazybump is probably one of the worst texture to normal programs out there, really try to actually keep up to date and don't recommend people complete shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Oct 2015 17:40:35 No.497379 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497559

>>496989
Baking normals are mostly done either in your 3D modelling program of choice or with a third party program like Xnormal. However I personally don't recommend Xnormal as compared to the default bakers form 3DsMax or Maya it really sucks especially when it comes to baking 8bit normals as you'll have banding on your gradients which look horrible on reflective surfaces. (You can get around this with baking it as a 16bit map and then manually converting it to 8bit but that's just troublesome).

If you want to convert textures to normals then I suggest you nDo2, ShaderMap or Bitmap2Material from Substance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Oct 2015 19:26:23 No.497547 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>497378
Proof? Comparison pics?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Oct 2015 21:14:14 No.497559 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>497576 >>497614

>>497379

>other people recommend XNormal as an industry standard for baking out normals, among other programs for normal map generation
>you say it's shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Oct 2015 23:50:18 No.497576 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>497559
Proof.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2015 08:09:25 No.497614 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>497559
>maybe its standard AND shit
It can be both.
I don't really know as i don't use it. But i've heard from a lot of people (who did impressive work) that they avoid it, and rather use Maya or Substance Designer for baking.
Maybe its great for organic stuff but bad for Hard surface?
I use Substance Designer and it works fine.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches