/3/ - 3DCG

>>593348
those are hand painted.
just texture paint them in maya.

Check Vertex magazines, polycount and 3dmotive

>>593356
Wrong. Do not use Maya to paint textures. Substance Painter is what you want to use.

https://www.pluralsight.com/courses/substance-painter-creating-hand-painted-textures

>>593375
Substance Painter is not that great for hand-painted textures.
I prefer 3D Coat for that particular style even if i love Substance more. Painter is only great for more realistic stuff.

edit edge select edges edge mark seam unwrap image-editor image new edit object texture paint

>>593356
>>593375
>>593385
does the software matter all that much when you're handpainting?
since you're doing it by hand everything comes down to the brushes you use, no?
shouldn't the end result be the same, no matter if you use maya, SP, 3dcoat or even blender?

>>593621
Some things make it a bit easier by giving better presets and layer control.
But to a good artist, these only make the process faster or easier, not possible or impossible.

>>593348
http://polycount.com/discussion/104415/zelda-wind-waker-tech-and-texture-analysis-picture-heavy
Here's a breakdown of Wind Waker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjvuqDXEScg
And a video of someone texturing based off of wind waker.
Hope this is what you wanted.

>>593621
Substance Painter keeps all you Brush strokes in memory or somewhere else. Thats why you can uprez the resolution of your texture and SP rebuilds the image in that resolution.
That is a nice feature if you need it, but it also makes SP a little slower (at least on my hardware).
I have the feeling 3D Coat is more snappy and the brushes are a little better than what SP offers.
The end result should be the same, but how comfortable you'll get there might be different.

>>593622
so are there any good tutorials/courses that focus on the correct way to approach and handle hand painting, for both color wise and painting techniques and not so much on the software?

I make stylized textures in SD and then apply them in Painter. Substance is known for it's realistic tools (mainly the dirt generators) but it's pretty great with stylized stuff. You can do anything in Designer.

>>593641
I've tried both before, SP felt slow. Like it was too slow for me to work with comfortably. 3DCoat doesn't seem to have that problem for me, but there were some features that I missed going from one to the other (been awhile since I used SP, so I've kinda forgotten what they were desu)

>>593623
Mudbox is better for painting cartoony models than 3DCoat and Substance?

>>593621
Substance Painter doesn't even have options for pen pressure to opacity so yes, it does matter.

>>593786
I never get my head around this...whats the difference between flow and stroke opacity?
To me it seems they do the same thing.
While you can't map pen pressure to brush opacity, you can do it with flow.

>>593788
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o79RWJfmcZw

>>593788
One is easier to control with pressure, easier to keep consistent and lets you keep your brush "sharp", the other works by building up strokes and almost immediately makes everything blurred and fuzzy. I'll let you figure out which is which.
Flow just layers the brush stencil over the top of itself. Opacity (in the Photoshop/decent brush engine sense) sets the opacity of the stroke to the set value or pen pressure so long as the opacity of the underlying stroke/brush stencil is lower, regardless of what the previous opacity is. Worth noting that once you let go of the stroke, in most software, it stops doing this, and layering additional strokes adds opacity.
Flow is useful in a lot of situations but I wouldn't ever want it to be the one I'm stuck with. If you've got a background in art and ever tried some of the less popular software like early OpenCanvas, you'll know what being stuck with flow feels like: a lot of half-baked art software uses flow but calls it opacity. It's instantly recognizable, and if you don't know how Flow functions you'll probably just think of it as "shitty Opacity" since it's just the software crapping out brush stencils at a set rate and you'll immediately notice that the default brush is "just a bunch of circles" instead of a continuous line when you use the software's opacity.

>>593794
>>593796
Thanks a lot, now i got it.
WTF doesn't SP have this feature?

>>593375
>do not use Maya to paint textures
if you can't use it to get good textures, what makes you think it will make good models?

;)

>>593875
hmm, let's see, maybe because it's a whole other fucking task? models are 3D, textures are 2D
ffs this better be b8 anon

>>593987
>if it can't handle 2 dimensions, it can surely handle 3, anon...

>>594087
Do you use a saw to nail something to the wall or do you use a hammer?

>>594087
>>594089
im betting he uses a fork for everything
can't wait for him to fix an electric outlet

from the sticky , also bump

>>594089
>implying a 3d software shouldn't be a multitool like superior 3d softwares already are

;)

should I get substance painter if I don't have a clue how to draw/paint stuff? will it do the job for me?

>>594317
If you are not willing to get better and put effort into it then your output will stay the same quality no matter what tool you use.

>>593385
What about Quixel? I'd have thought with photoshop integration, it would be pretty nifty for cartoony style texture painting, but I heard it's only for PBR?

>>594255
Name one (1) "superior multitool software" that handles painting textures in a way that isn't garbage.

Note: "Blender" is not a valid answer.

>>594323
Being PBR doesn't stop you from doing stylized handpainted textures, but there's also nothing Quixel can do for stylized handpainting that isn't available in Photoshop CC's 3D mode already.

>>593875
Tell me anon, do you think tools used to cut metal, should be used to cut wood, or plastic?
Just because it can handle something "at a higher level" doesn't mean it should be used for things "at a lower level"
A dedicated tool will almost always be better for the task it was designed for. The only case I can think of where it wouldn't be is if the tool was improperly designed from the get-go or hasn't been maintained properly.

>>594358
you're not allowed to count out the proper answer just because you don't like it.

you shouldn't have invested into the stock of autodesk, retard.

how does it feel to know that your investment capital is being destroyed by a scab software?

i say this because you have zero reason to hate on blender otherwise.
zero
reason.

>>594391
>implying blender is not as good or (in some cases) better than other 3d modeling software
just because you don't know how to use it correctly, doesn't mean the tool is shoddy.

the tool is made to quality specs, you're just a dullard.

>>593348
Bake maps(light, AO, curvature etc), add filters and add details with comic brushes for oldschool like your pic related.
http://wiki.polycount.com/wiki/TexturingTutorials
Go with >>593679 if you want more modern PBR stylized.

>>594398
Blender's texturing tools suck ass even if you like the software as a whole. If a modeling package is to be judged by it's texturing tools then they all suck ass, Blender included.

>>594398
You're also reading way too far into shit if you came to the conclusion that I even use Autodesk software just because I'm willing to acknowledge that other texturing tools are much better than what you get in Blender.

>>594423
>Blender's texturing tools suck ass
incorrect.
>inb4 "nice argument hurr durr"
i don't need to argue against falsehoods, kid.

>>594424
>other texturing tools are much better
you mean like substance painter and designer?
yes, those programs are great.
blender can do the same shit with very little effort and for free.

blender wins again.

you may continue trying to argue this fact until the end of time, but blender is better because it's the same exact ability to create 3d, in a full package, for free.

i will reiterate so nobody comes back with stupid responses.

blender does all that same shit...
for free.

now to get back to the op question:
just texture paint your hand painted stuff in the modeling program.

if you were going for photorealism i would tell you to use something else, like google images and then uv unwrap that shit so you can bake your maps.

but , since it's only hand painted, if your 3d software can do texture painting, just do it in there directly on the model.
it's better that way.

>>594426
>blender wins again
So glad you could clear that up for everyone. Now that you've won, I guess you won't be needing to post on /3/ ever again.
Blender's texturing is awful. I'm sorry.
Feel free to correct me by posting actual videos of the process in work, or you know, just attack me personally for being stupid or something.

>>594426
>Blender's texturing tools don't suck
As I established a few posts ago, this is in fact Incorrect.
>inb4 "nice argument hurr durr"
I don't need to argue against falsehoods, kid.

>>594431
>correct me by posting actual videos of the process in work
next time do your own youtube search.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp-hESP55js

>>594439
>I established a few posts ago
you only established that you're an idiot.
you should watch the vid too.

>>594452
>Next time I try to make a point, YOU prove it
That's not how this works.
That video doesn't even show layer support. It only supports the idea that blender is shit at textures. Try again.

>>594452
You can technically create any image you want in Paint, for free! Only an absolute retard would buy Photoshop.

>>594476
correct!
>>594462
>doesn't even show layer support
it most certainly does, he just doesn't utilize it.
you guys are some funny guys.
just paint in the 3d prog.

>>594477
>It does, it just doesn't
What.jpg
>correct!
Incorrect, still have to buy Windows. :^)

>>594490
>buying software

>>594359
I just tried Photoshop's 3D mode and it seemed really slow and unintuitive. Is Quixel at least better in that area?

>>593348
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi4Ri_IbMIE&index=5&list=PLNHJ5gduZOiWXtbeiZZi3q082bclOHQY4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7ALfRw6I5I

inb5 >blender
You should be able to watch a vid of any software and 99% of the time you have equivalent tools to do so or you can apply the theory to what you have available. The texturing theory doesn't care what software you use.

>>594525
try mari, non comercial is free
https://www.foundry.com/products/mari/non-commercial

>>594578
Mari is overkill for hand-painting textures.
Its also slow.

>>594577
>texturing theory doesn't care what software you use
/thread

>>594426
>blender can do the same shit
This part is actually correct. In terms of doing stuff like procedural textures that you control / tweak, you can do that with Blender but you're going to have to paint the mask yourself (which is really what you're doing with Substance it's just hidden or more intuitive).

>with very little effort
It's going to take a ton of extra effort. All those programs come with huge libraries of procedural textures, general purpose textures, etc which Blender has none of.
You can make your own or download other people's stuff or carefully assemble a library of shit off the internet, but it's going to take a lot of effort compared to clicking on "Leather -> Shiny Leather -> Finger Print Smudges" in Quixel / Substance / Mari / Whatever

>and for free.
You'll have to spend a prodigious amount of time assembling that shit, or you can buy libraries of stuff. You're also going to have to learn all the ins and outs of Blender's node system and all the texture painting hotkeys and shit.

>>594490
You can achieve a kind of faux layer system via Slots and Nodes, it's just not intuitive or friendly at all.

>>594577
>>594630
agreed, /thread