Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
1. you don't need to separate the borders with a metalness map, let them be the material they are on.
What I meant is that in substance painter, imagine I have a base metal on my gun, so my metallic is 1. If I paint a layer on top that is not metallic, I would still have some blured edges because the alpha is never really black and white. So some parts of the metallic map will be gray because of this. My question was, should I avoid this ?
2. UV islands have nothing to do with the Metalness map.
I know, I didn't explain well. What I meant is based on 1., if indeed the metallic map must be binary, it is not really possible to mix 2 materials (one dielectric and one metallic). Some parts need to be fully metallic, no extra none metallic effects on top, some parts must be full dielectric.
I hope it's more clear, thanks for your time!
I ended up posting a comment on your PBR validation tool.
Really appreciate your contribution to the community! Cheers