JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Post anything about MX Simulator here. Please. I'm begging you.
User avatar
Jeremy150
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:56 am
Team: MV Films

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby Jeremy150 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:54 am

So yeah, like I said the most noticeable improvement that I see is the metals. I'm not a master at renders but you can see how good it can look with actually a pretty simple node setup.
The only lighting I have on this is an HDR.
Image

All the metals except for the dull parts like the casting on the frame are made with this node.
Image
Also you are definitely correct, without the HDR lighting it won't look great in game.
Image

jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 12954
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby jlv » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:09 am

I believe that node is essentially just mix(diffuse, gloss).
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.

User avatar
Jeremy150
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:56 am
Team: MV Films

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby Jeremy150 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:21 am

Each one of those settings play off of each other. As you may of noticed there is no option for fresnel. So if you change the value of metallic to 1, it give it the properties of a metal. Then based off amount of specularity and roughness that you give it, it will automatically calculate the correct amount of fresnel. It takes the guess work out of making materials, while being extremely accurate with real world data. That one node can give you so many different options for different materials, while being extremely simple. If you want something that looks like rubber, you would just turn the metallic to 0, turn the roughness almost all the way down to 0, and bump the specular to around .500. It has a transmission property so you can do things like glass easily. Anisotropic is great for making ridges in metal, something like the back of a frying pan, or more relevant to the game like you said, billet aluminum.
Image

User avatar
aeffertz
Posts: 3049
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:01 am
Team: Malt Liquor Boiz
Location: Wiscansin

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby aeffertz » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:08 am

HDR environment map lighting would be awesome.
Need a custom track object? Send me a PM! Will model for beer money.

Image

jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 12954
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby jlv » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:58 am

Jeremy150 wrote:Each one of those settings play off of each other. As you may of noticed there is no option for fresnel. So if you change the value of metallic to 1, it give it the properties of a metal. Then based off amount of specularity and roughness that you give it, it will automatically calculate the correct amount of fresnel. It takes the guess work out of making materials, while being extremely accurate with real world data. That one node can give you so many different options for different materials, while being extremely simple. If you want something that looks like rubber, you would just turn the metallic to 0, turn the roughness almost all the way down to 0, and bump the specular to around .500. It has a transmission property so you can do things like glass easily. Anisotropic is great for making ridges in metal, something like the back of a frying pan, or more relevant to the game like you said, billet aluminum.

Fresnel should be pretty simple to add. Can't say I see what the big deal is about the Principled node. It doesn't do anything that you couldn't do with the other nodes. If you were trying to recreate a real material by measuring how it reflects light from different angles and recreate the measurements in Blender you'd actually be better off with the regular nodes. The only upside I see is it might be a less confusing interface for some users.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.

User avatar
Jeremy150
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:56 am
Team: MV Films

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby Jeremy150 » Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:11 am

jlv wrote:Fresnel should be pretty simple to add. Can't say I see what the big deal is about the Principled node. It doesn't do anything that you couldn't do with the other nodes. If you were trying to recreate a real material by measuring how it reflects light from different angles and recreate the measurements in Blender you'd actually be better off with the regular nodes. The only upside I see is it might be a less confusing interface for some users.

I think one of the biggest benefits of adding the principled node, would be the ease of texturing for the artists. The materials will be able to pull a lot more weight and we won't have to do nearly the amount texturing work. With less texturing in Photoshop we will have significantly less psd sizes and more importantly, file sizes. Whenever I am laying out base colors in Photoshop to see how the bike is looking in game, the file sizes are extremely small. But once I start to do all the little tricks to make the bike look like its actually metal the file sizes significantly increase.
So implementing the principled node with be a major benefit in all areas. The models will look better, be less intensive on the game, and will reduce the time of completion.

Also, if we have to do less work in photoshop, this will save a lot of time that could be spent on optimizing the bike with LODs and even mipmaps.
Image

swoodmx
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:41 am
Team: Privateer

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby swoodmx » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:00 am

Jeremy you using blender 2.8 and how the fuck can i turn off the real time ray tracing in cycles viewport and go back to the standard one like in the older versions without evee!

swoodmx
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:41 am
Team: Privateer

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby swoodmx » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:05 am

Also Jeremy where is the hide from render and viewport keyframe toggle at in 2.8 I cant find them anymore!

swoodmx
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:41 am
Team: Privateer

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby swoodmx » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:06 am

they are called restrict rendering toggle in the old versions of blender

jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 12954
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby jlv » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:41 am

Jeremy150 wrote:I think one of the biggest benefits of adding the principled node, would be the ease of texturing for the artists. The materials will be able to pull a lot more weight and we won't have to do nearly the amount texturing work. With less texturing in Photoshop we will have significantly less psd sizes and more importantly, file sizes. Whenever I am laying out base colors in Photoshop to see how the bike is looking in game, the file sizes are extremely small. But once I start to do all the little tricks to make the bike look like its actually metal the file sizes significantly increase.
So implementing the principled node with be a major benefit in all areas. The models will look better, be less intensive on the game, and will reduce the time of completion.

Also, if we have to do less work in photoshop, this will save a lot of time that could be spent on optimizing the bike with LODs and even mipmaps.

The file size has nothing to do with the space used in texture memory. It's always width*height*channels for uncompressed and 1/4 of that for compressed.

I'm all for nicer shaders but I just think the whole PBR thing sounds like a load of BS. The good thing about the PBR/Principled/Disney shader is it appears to be a standardized set of material parameters. That is a genuinely good thing for interoperability between tools. But to make it out like it's some kind of rendering magic is flat out dishonest. Just look at that picture you posted where the non-PBR example didn't even have an environment map. That's a complete lie. A fair comparison would have used the exact same lighting. Only problem is the PBR example wouldn't look noticeably better that way.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.

User avatar
YaBoiMxx
Crushed Dissenter
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:00 pm
Team: 6ixLab Racing
Location: Australia

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby YaBoiMxx » Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:33 am

So JLV what do you think of Mx Simulator being implemented into UE4? what is your opinion and will it happen..
#Whipitwednesday

User avatar
Hi Im Skyqe
Posts: 2770
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:52 pm
Team: wat

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby Hi Im Skyqe » Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:43 am

YaBoiMxx wrote:So JLV what do you think of Mx Simulator being implemented into UE4? what is your opinion and will it happen..


Not happening..

User avatar
YaBoiMxx
Crushed Dissenter
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:00 pm
Team: 6ixLab Racing
Location: Australia

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby YaBoiMxx » Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:13 am

Thought so..
#Whipitwednesday

swoodmx
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:41 am
Team: Privateer

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby swoodmx » Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:14 am

JLV needs to get with the times this game feels great but looks like dung LOLOOOLOLOL

User avatar
Jeremy150
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:56 am
Team: MV Films

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby Jeremy150 » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:10 pm

jlv wrote:The file size has nothing to do with the space used in texture memory. It's always width*height*channels for uncompressed and 1/4 of that for compressed.

I'm all for nicer shaders but I just think the whole PBR thing sounds like a load of BS. The good thing about the PBR/Principled/Disney shader is it appears to be a standardized set of material parameters. That is a genuinely good thing for interoperability between tools. But to make it out like it's some kind of rendering magic is flat out dishonest. Just look at that picture you posted where the non-PBR example didn't even have an environment map. That's a complete lie. A fair comparison would have used the exact same lighting. Only problem is the PBR example wouldn't look noticeably better that way.

So what options are we limited to with materials currently? Is it just Specular and Mirror/Gloss? Is it just the extra options like Metallic, Roughness, Anisotropic, Sheen, Clearcoat, IOR/Transmission, and accurate Fresnel, that have been giving me much better results? I suppose if you just added those properties, then we would be able to achieve the same result. However, why not just implement the Principled Shader node as our main material setup? From the node that I posted you can see how easy it is to get something that looks pretty good.

I've been trying to find another example of the difference between PBR, and Specular/Traditional with both having and HDR setup. But it seems that PBR and HDR lighting are almost a given to go together. So I did another quick render to hopefully show the difference.
Image
This is using the exact same HDRI map, except the materials are made the traditional way.
Image

Again, I'll agree that there isn't a huge difference, and that PBR isnt "some kind of rendering magic". But it is pretty clear that you can achieve the same, if not better results, with a much simpler node setup.
Image


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bcrase14, Google [Bot] and 10 guests