Baking textures with multiple materials

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

StoneDwarf wrote:

@ Toysoldier. Multiple texture surfaces? I assume you are trying to do the multiple materials trick to end up with several faces in-world, right? If so, why would you do this with or in Zbrush?

---

You r right - that is what i want to learn - how to apply zones on the model so that when its exported to SL - a texture can be applied to these different zones.

Why would I use Zbrush to do this?  Because its my choice of modeling tool.  The only other tool I know pretty well is Sculptris and it is near zero on any UV mapping controls.

I guess its like asking why you would use mudbox as your 3D modeling tool.  If there was a function you didnt understand in mudbox... why dont you use another tool that is known by the forum to do it?

[StoneDwarf]

I think you misunderstood me.

The reason why I asked if you used Zbrush, is because Zbrush is not a 3D modeling program. Zbrush's sculpting tools is what makes the program one of the best sculpting programs available at the moment, and sculpting and modeling is everything but the same. With this in mind, I wondered why you would use Zbrush for such purposes like you just described.

However, if it works for you, you should stick with it, of course. As long as the job gets done it should be no problem. But because of the problems you are encountering, I am wondering if you are taking the right approach. I would assume there are many Zbrush users who are reading this topic with us, and given the fact nobody has posted a solution for your specific issue, sadly, you might understand why I asked why you were using Zbrush.

I am not familiar with Zbrush, so I can't say whether you are doing things right or wrong. I just hope that you achieve the results you are looking for!

As far as me using Mudbox as my modeling tool – no. If I would have to describe Mudbox's purpose in my current pipeline, I would say its an essential part of my texture process. I am a fan of hand painted textures, which is why I use Mudbox. Plus, I can sculpt details in high poly meshes that I can bake into my low poly mesh textures.

Have you tried cgsociety's forum?

[Toysoldier Thor]

I guess my limited past experience building 3D models (i.e. in the past 3 years I created 3D models of landscape terrains for the most part for export to SL Sculpt maps) might have me confused as to what the difference is between sculpting a 3d model vs "modeling" a 3D model.

I have learned lately that Zbrush is not designed for rigging or as someone said "animating a model".  It seems to only be able to make "static 3D models" and is awesome at texturing these models. 

Similar to your mudbox, Zbrush seems to be incredibly powerful at texturing models.  Its PolyPaint seems to do exactly that you say you are doing in mudbox.  I create a very low poly 3d model (lets say a 1000 polygon person head).  Then I divide this low poly model 5 or 6 times to get the model up to - lets say 2 million polygons.  Then I turn on PolyPaint and I can use several painting and texture application tools to paint color information onto each of the 2 million verices of the model.

In fact, while I am polypainting the 2 million vertices model, I can freely even change the model's mesh design - even at the same time that i am painting the model.  Since there is no UV yet assigned to the model, I am free to paint and shape this model any way I want until I am happy with how its shaped and painted.

At this time reduce the model back to the lowest LOD of 1000 polygons and apply the UV Map to the model.  Using a plugin tool called UVMaster - this is as easy as about 6 or 7 button presses to apply the UV map to the model.

With the Model now having a UV map, I can now create an industry understood Texture Map from the polypainted model (since nothing outside Zbrush understands the polypainted information).  This again is about 3 button presses for me to create any resolution of texture map for even the lowest of polygon models.  My 1000 polygon model now has a 1024x1024 (highest for SL) or even higher available texture map.

When I export this model with the texture map, it has proven to be pretty much dead-on accurate to what the zbrush model had.

Thanks to the added tips from bouttime, using ZappLink, I can transfer the polypainted surface of the model to Photoshop in a few steps, where I can actually even bake on the material textures onto the polypaint (i.e. a shiny marble specularity onto the painted surface) and then automatically send this material baked painted texture back into PolyPaint in Zbrush.

I dont know how powerful mudbox is but I have to say as I am learning more about Zbrush, free hand painting onto a 3d Model with no UV / mesh limitations seems to be one of Zbrush's strongest features.

What I dont know and you might be right.... maybe Zbrush cannot do multi-texture zonings on a model.  I would find it surprising if it couldnt since I have seen Zbrush create / work with multi-UV island models.  But then the next potential hurdle is - even if Zbrush can create these texture zones on a model.... maybe the 3rd party Collada exporter tool might not know how to export it.

 PS.... no... I have never heard ot cgosity.  What is it?  How might it help?

[Chosen Few]

Hmm, it seems you're right that after too many tiles are in use, it fails.  Seeing this now, I feel a little silly, actually.  I've been using Turtle for years, and never before noticed this problem.  I guess I've just never had need to do more than a few at a time, so I never hit the limit. 

In experiments just now, I was able to get it to do as many as six, but no more.  That was with three in the positive, and three in the negative, in sort of a Z shaped configuration.  When the tiles are arranged in a common sense rectangular configuration, it'll only do four.  Very weird.

In any case, there is a work-around.  Halve the size of your shells, and then double the texture resolution.  That way, you can get eight textures worth of pixels, from just four tiles.  You'll just need to do a little bit of extra slicing afterward in Photoshop.  So, while this is certainly annoying, it's not insurmountable.

 

I'm beginning to rethink my approach.  As I now see it, the best strategy for models that will need many textures is to do a combination of both techniques.  Before exporting to Mudbox, arrange everything into tiles.  Then, after re-importing back to Maya, copy each tile to its own set, and move everything back to the primary shell in each.  This extra step is again a bit of an annoyance, but not a showstopper.

[StoneDwarf]

The biggest difference between sculpted geometry and modeled geometry is that sculpted geometry ends up in a normal map. Base meshes however, the meshes that will receive the normal map, are modeled. There are exceptions, of course, and there are many artists who simply start with a base mesh in their sculpting program of choice and start sculpting away. But I can assure you that 9 out of 10 times – during, for example, character visualization – people start with modeling a base mesh in an actual modeling program, then begin sculpting and not the opposite way around.

Second Life however, does not support normal maps, thus we must improvise. We simply bake our specular maps, normal maps, bump maps yadda yadda into a single texture and hope for the best. Nonetheless the priority of getting your base mesh right and then the details – obviously, in that exact order – remains the same.

And you are right about the poly painting, yes. It is a very powerful feature and allows you to paint stuff without having to worry about UV maps, unlike Mudbox, sadly! I keep forgetting about that feature, although it is probably one of the most often used features.

My advice would be, though - but this is just my own opinion - that you pick up a modeling program and use Zbrush for sculpting and texture purposes. Even if you figured out how to do the material tricky, granted it actually is possible, of course, your workflow would profit tremendously.

On that note, have you tried Blender? Surely Blender is capable of doing the material thingy. If you feel comfortable with Zbrush and just need to apply a few materials in preparions for Second Life, I would throw it through Blender.

Cgsociety is a website, with a forum. I would bookmark it, pet it, love it and cherish it. The amount of information, inspiration, tips, advice and tutorials you will find there, is priceless and for free!

[StoneDwarf]

---

Chosen Few wrote:

I'm beginning to rethink my approach.  As I now see it, the best strategy for models that will need many textures is to do a combination of both techniques.  Before exporting to Mudbox, arrange everything into tiles.  Then, after re-importing back to Maya, copy each tile to its own set, and move everything back to the primary shell in each.  This extra step is again a bit of an annoyance, but not a showstopper.

---

 

This, yes.

I can only hope you have plenty of resoruces available to move those 9999999+ poly meshes, otherwise it will be a showstopper. ^^

[Toysoldier Thor]

Thanks for providing a description of the difference.  I am not sure I am using a normal map when sculpting my shape as i never run across that term but heck... maybe i am and i dont even know it.

LOL - simply put ... i take a basic 3D model shape (like a 3D plane or sphere) at a low poly count and start pull, yanking, shaping, basic 3d dimensions of the form.  Then i divide up to a higher polycount and add more details.  When it looks close to what i wanna paint - i massively divide up to a resolution that i can high res paint on the vertices.  If that somehow is working with a normal map - then that is what i am doing.

The good part for me is that my needs for modeling/sculpting are low compared to those that are using 3D modeling for animation or other more advanced things.  I have no plans to create rigged mesh objects in SL.  I likely will be staying with "static shaped" models and multi-object models.

I just want to make sure i know the limitson texturing - like the multi-surface texturing.

Why dont i use Blender?  When I first started I used Blender.  Even after a year of ... as i can best describe as... "struggling" with its hugely complicated UI, I was convinced by a highly talented IBM / SL Sculpty Creator to consider Zbrush.  Although Zbrush had its own confusing hurdles, its UI is far far less confusing than Blender.  That was back in 2.49.  Recently I installed the latest version of blender and its UI only became more confusing.  I only used it to import and immediately export OBJ to Collada.  Anything beyond that was Brian-Hurting.

There is no denying that Blender has a lot of power to do anything.... but I simply refuse to hurt my braincells trying to understand Blender's completely non-intuitive horrid UI.

I like Sculptris (free and it using the amazing VOXEL sculpting technology that fits so well with my free thinking / free creating analog method of sculpting).  Sadly it clearly needs a tool like Zbrush as its partner. 

I really think I would have liked 3D-Coat as it also supports Voxel Sculpting but it cost money and the trial period ended before I felt comfortable enough to decide to invest in that tool.  I think i will wait until 3D Coat releases a native Collada Exporter for SL (the developers told me they were working on it). 

I already made an investment in Zbrush a while ago and even though until recently Zbrush has been used in a very limited fashion (because i didnt grasp the polypaint feature properly), I am now starting to see its strength.

I also got all the free license downloads of the 3DDaz products but I am not sure how helpful they will be for me.

All the other tools like Maya are way out of my price range if I recall they are very expensive.  No use have a tool like Maya that costs more money than the revenue I would generate out of SL to pay for having the tool.  I look at tools like that for professional creators that make their living off these tool.  Not a fit for me.

 

So in conclusion, I likely will use the tools I have, know, understand, and can afford to the best of their ability.  If there are limits that these tools cannot address - like multi-texture zones on an SL Model... then so be it.... I will just avoid building SL mesh models with these features.

I will go see this CGosity tonight when i have a moment.

[StoneDwarf]

That does makes sense, yeah.

Do know that the confusing interface of Blender, is only temporary. Its possibilities however, and its results, are not. Plus, once normal maps will arrive in Second Life (which will happen most likely at some point) you will be armed with all the tools one needs to model, UV, sculpt, texture, rig and animate a mesh.

And with the Machimatrix covering your back, things simply cannot go wrong!

[Toysoldier Thor]

LOL I would feel comforted if I knew who Machimetrix was that was "covering my back" lol

Honestly, if 3D modeling was the only thing I had going on in my SL / online life then I might be willing to pull my fingernails out to learn the Blender interface.  But considering I am into sculpty making, sl merchant, art works creation (2D digital art and photography and photo manipulation), and singing, and RL art gallery development, and building in sl.... not to mention I have a RL job not related to any of this and I also run a RL side business not related to my RL job or my online life....

Taking on Blender is about as high on my priority list as would be the idea of solving world hunger.   Would love to do it but just not feasible.

again... I have no interest in rigging or animation.  And I already have figured out the workaround on how to apply materials onto a baked texture.  This is all good enough for me.

I will leave the DEEP DIVE 3D Modeling concepts for those that want to focus on this technology.  Im spread too thin already.

But thank you very much for the new insights!!

[Porky Gorky]

Apologies in advance for necro posting. 

I can see a solution for baking textures for objects with multiple materials for Maya, but I was hopping someone could provide a similar solution for 3DS Max? At the moment when I want to bake part of an object, I UVW unwrap it, then detach/clone the section I want to bake. This works but can be a pain in the arse and restrictive in some instances. Is there a simpler way to do this?

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

As far as I know there isn't a way to single out a material ID for baking in 3ds max, I could be wrong of course.

I think detaching is the easiest solution. It takes only a couple of mouseclicks afterall.

One other thing I can think of is using different UV channels for the different materials. So if you have 3 materials IDs, make 3 UV channels, where you collapse everything you don't want on the UV map into a small corner of the canvas. You can then bake on each channel seperately. Never tried that, but I can't see why it wouldn't work.

[Porky Gorky]

I remember playing around with the separate UV channels when I first learned how to UVW unwrap but could not find a solution then. I will definitely go back and look at that now I have a bit more experience..

I find the drawback to detaching parts is I sometimes miss shadows. For example If I detach the bottom part of a model and bake the shadows using a spotlight then I may miss shadows cast by the rest of the model that has not been detached. It's a problem that can solved through careful planning, but it is a problem that has slowed me down on a few occasions.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

You can simply detach part of the geometry by selecting one of the IDs. So the detached part will have a single material and it will still be in place. Both occlusion and shadows should be fine then.