Reply
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
blazed's Avatar
Old (#1)
The first image below is the wireframe.

Second is a render with bump map in 3ds max, as you can see the normals work perfectly leaving no weird shading.

Third is a marmoset (also the same as UE4) when its in real time shader. As you can see I am getting weird shading.

I thought the whole idea of splitting UV islands at 40 degree angles and setting smoothing groups by UV islands was to overcome this cross app problems where the normals would take care of the smoothing as it did in 3Ds max.

So how do I fix this and future tips? Do I just add more supporting geometry? Should I try to keep things quads if they are not on a flat surface? Etc?

Thanks.


Offline , spline, 198 Posts, Join Date Jun 2011,  
   Reply With Quote

JedTheKrampus's Avatar
Old (#2)
Does it help if you change the tangent space of the mesh to 3ds Max in Toolbag?
Offline , triangle, 451 Posts, Join Date Nov 2013, Location Kansas City, MO  
   Reply With Quote

blazed's Avatar
Old (#3)
I actually went the long way and just cut out quads to fix the issue, it has more polies now but at least it fixes the issue.

I wish I had tried your suggestion earlier, but I need it to work in UE4 so fixing it in marmoset wouldn't have proved useful anyway.

I'd still like any feedback on how to handle these kind of situations if there is a quicker way.

Offline , spline, 198 Posts, Join Date Jun 2011,  
   Reply With Quote

Noors's Avatar
Old (#4)
There is no standard for normal map generation and normal map display. Max uses its own system, which differs from Maya, UE4, cryEngine...
Did you take a look at handplane ? It's free and let you convert normal maps between targeted engines.
http://www.handplane3d.com/
No you don't have to use quad strips on a low poly. It should work like in Max renderer.
Andif you have to zoom so much to see shading errors, it's not that serious.
Offline , dedicated polycounter, 1,386 Posts, Join Date Dec 2008, Location Paris, France  
   Reply With Quote

AtticusMars's Avatar
Old (#5)
Generally speaking if it looks fine in one renderer but not in another then it is a sync or export issue. Meaning like the other two guys mentioned already, handplane or the correct tangent setting should have fixed it.

Also your lowpoly has no quads in it. It is effectively only triangles. The reason your shading improved is because you have more supporting geometry and fewer edges collapsing to a single vert, not because you chose to use quads instead of triangles.
Offline , triangle, 331 Posts, Join Date Jan 2013,  
   Reply With Quote

Quack!'s Avatar
Old (#6)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noors View Post
There is no standard for normal map generation and normal map display. Max uses its own system, which differs from Maya, UE4, cryEngine...
Did you take a look at handplane ? It's free and let you convert normal maps between targeted engines.
http://www.handplane3d.com/
No you don't have to use quad strips on a low poly. It should work like in Max renderer.
Andif you have to zoom so much to see shading errors, it's not that serious.
This is half true.

Modern programs can read your tangents and binormals nowadays which can produce near-on synched results without handplane.

UE4, Substance Designer/Painter, Toolbag2, xNormal all can read your tangents and binormals from your .FBX file. So this means that a bake in max, should look 'synched' in all of these packages as long as you use .fbx and send/read the tangents and binormals from the file.

With that said, harsh triangulation like in your image can still produce artifacts. The most efficient way nowadays, if this asset is for the current generation, would be to throw a bit more geometry at it(like you did).

Last edited by Quack!; 12-10-2014 at 01:48 PM..
Nick Quackenbush, Star Trek Ship Artist @ Cryptic Studios ---- Linked In || Twitter || District 9 Mech
Offline , polycounter, 1,015 Posts, Join Date Jul 2006, Location San Jose, California  
   Reply With Quote

JedTheKrampus's Avatar
Old (#7)
I don't know about Designer but I'm pretty sure that last time I tried it Painter didn't read tangent space. But the other ones are all correct. The workflow where you import your tangents to UE4 is going to be the way to go until Epic finishes merging James' and my tangent basis patch.
Offline , triangle, 451 Posts, Join Date Nov 2013, Location Kansas City, MO  
   Reply With Quote

Quack!'s Avatar
Old (#8)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JedTheKrampus View Post
I don't know about Designer but I'm pretty sure that last time I tried it Painter didn't read tangent space. But the other ones are all correct. The workflow where you import your tangents to UE4 is going to be the way to go until Epic finishes merging James' and my tangent basis patch.
I ASSumed Painter does because Designer does, so that, is odd if it doesn't.
Nick Quackenbush, Star Trek Ship Artist @ Cryptic Studios ---- Linked In || Twitter || District 9 Mech
Offline , polycounter, 1,015 Posts, Join Date Jul 2006, Location San Jose, California  
   Reply With Quote

blazed's Avatar
Old (#9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quack! View Post
This is half true.

Modern programs can read your tangents and binormals nowadays which can produced near-on synched results without handplane.

UE4, Substance Designer/Painter, Toolbag2, xNormal all can read your tangents and binormals from your .FBX file. So this means that a bake in max, should look 'synched' in all of these packages as long as you use .fbx and send/read the tangents and binormals from the file.

With that said, harsh triangulation like in your image can still produce artifacts. The most efficient way nowadays, if this asset is for the current generation, would be to throw a bit more geometry at it(like you did).
I think you explained it best.

I did export it as an FBX with the tangent information and I did Split UV's properly and smoothing groups by UV islands but UE4 and Marmoset just wasn't having those long Triangles.

Upon adding more geometry I realised I was still getting smoothing problems in some areas even with long stretched quads on flat planes. Something everyone forgot to mention is that I should "triangulate" my mesh then Bake and export. That fixed every single issue and the normals work crystal clear now.

I don't think that would have been the case with the long triangles though as that area was already triangulated.

So correct me if I'm wrong but the conclusion is: don't use long triangles on non-plane surfaces if you don't want shading errors.

Offline , spline, 198 Posts, Join Date Jun 2011,  
   Reply With Quote

Noors's Avatar
Old (#10)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quack! View Post
This is half true.

Modern programs can read your tangents and binormals nowadays which can produce near-on synched results without handplane.

UE4, Substance Designer/Painter, Toolbag2, xNormal all can read your tangents and binormals from your .FBX file. So this means that a bake in max, should look 'synched' in all of these packages as long as you use .fbx and send/read the tangents and binormals from the file.
Oh, so that means the map calculation is always the same, and only the tangent/binormals base might change through softwares ?
Sorry for misleading informations.
Offline , dedicated polycounter, 1,386 Posts, Join Date Dec 2008, Location Paris, France  
   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright 1998-2014 Polycount