JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Post anything about MX Simulator here. Please. I'm begging you.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 12886
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby jlv » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:37 am

swoodmx wrote:MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Image

I hate to be the guy always debunking this stuff but that comparison is bogus. The left side is completely untextured. Not saying displacement mapping isn't worthwhile, just that the comparison isn't realistic since by the time you go to displacement mapping you already have at least diffuse textures and probably normal mapping as well. A more valid comparison would be diffuse+normals vs diffuse+normals+displacement.
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
vortexracingleader
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:49 am
Team: MotoRAD

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby vortexracingleader » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:33 pm

PBR materials deal with more maps, a diffuse+specualar workflow will look good in certain settings. a pbr material will make the material look correct in all lighting. most maps inside a pbr material go as followed, (albedo,normal,roughness,metallic) most reason why people go about the pbr method is to have accurate metals and materials represented. i see your argument that environment is a huge factor on the way a materiel is displayed and yes you can achieve a good result with diffuse + specular but if you had real time lighting and lighting that changed, you will have some serious problems with the way a bike will or material will look. say you had a diffuse+spec bike and the lighting changed from day to night... during the day the you might not notice the difference in the bike but once the lighting changed you will notice the diffuse+spec version of the bike will not change. material will still look the same as the engine is not calculating the change of surface reflection like a pbr material will.

*************************** FROM THIS LINK https://www.marmoset.co/posts/pbr-texture-conversion/ ********************

The biggest difference between the two workflows is how the diffuse and reflectivity content is defined in the texture maps. In the specular workflow, these values are set explicitly with two unique texture maps.

The metalness workflow on the other hand, uses the albedo map to define both the diffuse and reflectivity content and the metalness map to define whether the material is an insulator or a metal. The reason for this is that metals conduct electricity, which means that most photons (which are electromagnetic waves) reflect off the surface, and any photons that pass through the surface are absorbed rather than diffused, so metals typically do not have a diffuse component. Insulators on the other hand reflect a very small amount of light (~4%) and much of the of light that hits the material diffuses or bounces around the surface creating an even distribution of color.In practice, this means that much or even all (if your texture has only metals or insulators but not both) of either the diffuse or specular map will be wasted information, so the metalness workflow is usually more efficient. However, one of the drawbacks to storing both diffuse and specular content in the same texture is artifacts along material transitions.

Gloss and roughness maps define the same information, but usually on an inverse scale. With gloss maps, bright values typically define smooth/glossy surfaces, while roughness maps typically use bright values to define rough/matte surfaces. In some regions, the word glossiness is a synonymous with reflectivity, so some people think roughness is a less confusing word to use. The important thing here is not what the map is called but what the values represent, if in doubt, talk to your technical artists or engineers.

Pros of the specular workflow
Diffusion and reflectance are set directly with two explicit inputs, which may be preferable to artists who have experience working with traditional shaders.
More control over reflectivity for insulators is provided with a full color input.

Cons of the specular workflow

Easy to use illogical reflectance values which gives inaccurate results.
Uses more texture memory than the metalness workflow.

Pros of the metalness workflow
The albedo map defines the color of the object no matter the type of material, which may be easier for artists to understand conceptually.
Simplifies materials into two categories, insulators and metals, which may make it more difficult to author content with unrealistic texture values
Uses less texture memory than full color specular workflow

Cons of the metalness workflow

Material transition points cause white line artifacts
Less control over reflectivity for insulators*
If artists do not understand workflow, it’s easy to use illogical values in metalness map and break the system

hopefully this clears up some misconceptions, yes you can achieve the same results going both methods but imo pbr is still the way to go
Image

User avatar
vortexracingleader
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:49 am
Team: MotoRAD

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby vortexracingleader » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:49 pm

Sorry for DP but forgot to say, to explain more of a difference, the correct way to go about a spec map would be to add some color to some things that way it helps more with getting a more finished looking material, but a big issue with that is in every lighting the color or tone you applied in the spec will show, as a pbr material will always update. so if you apply a blueish overtone on the spec map in every lighting you will have the blue overtone and it not being depended on the lighting and things around
Image

Pumaxcs
Posts: 12841
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:50 pm
Team: Kyle/Luiz
Location: Western, Kentucky
Contact:

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby Pumaxcs » Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:01 pm

StevoGP wrote:Go have a look at what they doing for the pc dakar game 2018 .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ka2op5mc0o


We just going to ignore that the Dakar game made Motostorm look Sim-like?
Image
Everytime you post something stupid, a baby gets punched in the face. Please be smart, for the children.

MXS Cares

swoodmx
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:41 am
Team: Privateer

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby swoodmx » Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:38 pm

jlv wrote:
swoodmx wrote:MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Image

I hate to be the guy always debunking this stuff but that comparison is bogus. The left side is completely untextured. Not saying displacement mapping isn't worthwhile, just that the comparison isn't realistic since by the time you go to displacement mapping you already have at least diffuse textures and probably normal mapping as well. A more valid comparison would be diffuse+normals vs diffuse+normals+displacement.


Its funny you should bring that up because I am rendering a sink and i have two versions one with no displacement and one with it and the results are amazing with the displacement. I will upload some pics when rendering is done.

swoodmx
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:41 am
Team: Privateer

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby swoodmx » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:14 am


swoodmx
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:41 am
Team: Privateer

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby swoodmx » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:49 am


User avatar
Phathry25
Posts: 7378
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:09 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Location: WI
Contact:

Re: JLV should use Unreal Engine 4!

Postby Phathry25 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:18 am

jlv wrote:
yzmxer608 wrote:
jlv wrote:it uses the custom made "No Frills" engine.

How's the team doing?

It's been pretty bad since Phat retired!


I miss you too.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests