-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Paintkits
- Thread starter bazzar
- Start date
DaveQ
Charter Member
I'd just like to see how it's supposed to be done. I'm experimenting with MCX conversions to see what I can do with exterior metal and paint that can't be done with 'conventional' techniques. And thus far I'm simply using the old paint kit, creating metal texture files using just black and white. I make roughness/smoothness files from much modified old specular files and using those as alphas either on the metal file or the diffuse (albedo) file, and that's it. The results aren't bad though I can't get enough textural variation (IMHO) and dark glossy colours (especially black and blue) have a powdery or washed out appearance in some lights. Here's an illustration - CF-104 104763 in an end-of-career special livery.
I have a feeling that I'm not including something, possibly ambient occlusion. Where does that go and how do I do it?? In conclusion the paint kit will need to show me what to do to get a range of effects depending on what particular aircraft at what period of its life I'm trying to paint.
Finally, thanks for all your incredible work, Bazzar
!!
DaveQ
I have a feeling that I'm not including something, possibly ambient occlusion. Where does that go and how do I do it?? In conclusion the paint kit will need to show me what to do to get a range of effects depending on what particular aircraft at what period of its life I'm trying to paint.
Finally, thanks for all your incredible work, Bazzar
!!DaveQ
bazzar
Charter Member 2018
Hi Dave, the problem is you are trying to apply PBR technique to a non-PBR model. The model will not be mapped using PBR textures so will never respond properly to any metal/rough or albedo, be it real or quasi. Basically it is still asking for "conventional" materials for its maps. You need to create an FBX or OBJ from model,then make and apply the PBR materials using those maps and output them as PBR textures -albedo,metal/rough and normal. It's not easy and without access to a high-end programme like Substance Painter, a very long process.
ColoKent
SOH-CM-2025
Bazz...simply love what you guys produce...but...just letting you know...I'm not certain you are going to get a particularly insightful set of responses on this board. I'm not very certain that most in this community understand the implications and requirements of PBR (I certainly don't). This lack of understanding/insight will, I think hamper most meaningful insight. All of this is ONLY my "junior-painter" perspective.
Kent
Kent
bazzar
Charter Member 2018
Hi Kent, yes I understand but if the question isn't asked and discussed, people will not know what is and isn't possible. The number of times the question "will it have a paintkit?" is asked would indicate people's interest in having access to particular or just more liveries. I'm afraid the old days of "slap the colour here on this layer" are gone. It is highly likely that the ability to re-paint a subject properly may only lie in the hands of very experienced repaint artists. If we can make their lives a little easier, maybe the larger community as a whole will benefit. I don't know. We'd very much like to offer a "quality"paint-kit with the C-47/DC-3 but at present it is difficult to assess exactly what that might contain.
DaveQ
Charter Member
Hi Dave, the problem is you are trying to apply PBR technique to a non-PBR model. The model will not be mapped using PBR textures so will never respond properly to any metal/rough or albedo, be it real or quasi. Basically it is still asking for "conventional" materials for its maps. You need to create an FBX or OBJ from model,then make and apply the PBR materials using those maps and output them as PBR textures -albedo,metal/rough and normal. It's not easy and without access to a high-end programme like Substance Painter, a very long process.
Hmmm... So, basically, by taking the model into ModelConverterX (latest version) opening the Materials Editor and setting PBR to 'True' for a texture, setting up a metal texture then setting the roughness file to metal or albedo alpha, and finally saving as a P3Dv4.4 .mdl does NOT get you a PBR-enabled model for that texture and however many others you want to set??
Oh! phooey!
Still it's great fun...!
DaveQ
Sundog
SOH-CM-2026
Hi Dave,
My question is this; are there different models for different finishes? e.g. metal finish versus a painted finish? Or is it just the PBR map that is different? Maybe it doesn't matter, but if it's the latter, I'm thinking a separate paint kit for each finish type with the corresponding layer used for the PBR reference? i.e.-If I have a metal finish and add markings, I want to be able to copy the markings areas to the PBR layer to change the finish appearance in those areas. Does that make sense?
Ken
My question is this; are there different models for different finishes? e.g. metal finish versus a painted finish? Or is it just the PBR map that is different? Maybe it doesn't matter, but if it's the latter, I'm thinking a separate paint kit for each finish type with the corresponding layer used for the PBR reference? i.e.-If I have a metal finish and add markings, I want to be able to copy the markings areas to the PBR layer to change the finish appearance in those areas. Does that make sense?
Ken
bazzar
Charter Member 2018
Basically, the models don't change, the materials do. With polished metal effects, the problems are in the metal/roughness channels. You must mask off the metal areas if you want pure gloss and not metallic paint. Also any graphics and lettering will "bleed"through the other channels if not masked off.
pilto von pilto
Members +
The primary issue is time. I think there will be a number of current repainters that wont want to take the time to make paints for PBR. I see it working more like how mods work for current gen AAA games. The ones that want to take the time and effort to make the mod will do it, they will take the time to hand craft the metallic map with their own ( or modified versions of the ones that ship ) and compile it all together. We'll see less repaints and possibly less people making them.
In sundogs test case for the markings he would need to do this.
1. Base colour map needs the change ( obviously )
2. The metallic channel of the metallic map ( ours are called texture_m.dds etc ) will need a mask on the parts that are the markings.
3. The roughness/specular/gloss channel of the metallic map will need a mask on the parts that are the markings... as paint has a different IOR to metal.
4. Save that PSD/AFphoto/PSP as a dds.
5. Test in the sim.
6. Reach for the 15th beer as you realise that the SDK for P3d isnt entirely correct and there's a bit of trial and error and start over.
It's all right for most devs as they've made export presets and material presets with P3D oddities built in ( or at least they should have by now ). But for repainters that option doesnt exist so you have what we have above... which is what you get ... to paraphrase "cool hand luke".
In sundogs test case for the markings he would need to do this.
1. Base colour map needs the change ( obviously )
2. The metallic channel of the metallic map ( ours are called texture_m.dds etc ) will need a mask on the parts that are the markings.
3. The roughness/specular/gloss channel of the metallic map will need a mask on the parts that are the markings... as paint has a different IOR to metal.
4. Save that PSD/AFphoto/PSP as a dds.
5. Test in the sim.
6. Reach for the 15th beer as you realise that the SDK for P3d isnt entirely correct and there's a bit of trial and error and start over.
It's all right for most devs as they've made export presets and material presets with P3D oddities built in ( or at least they should have by now ). But for repainters that option doesnt exist so you have what we have above... which is what you get ... to paraphrase "cool hand luke".
jankees
SOH-CM-2026
To be honest, I haven't really studied the effects so far due to lack of time, but if all it involves is the way you describe it then I'm all for it. It sounds exactly like what I do now with spec files, so I don't see any extra work.
Of course, I may be completely mistaken here...
Of course, I may be completely mistaken here...
DaveQ
Charter Member
The 'simple' way I do it, the old spec.psd becomes the basis for the 'roughness/gloss' channel which I make the diffuse/albedo alpha, though most put it as the metallic alpha. I think..! The metal texture is (as I said previously) white for aluminium and black for paint. I believe other metals need different colours though not tried that yet.
Having admired 000rick000's and others work in DSC I'm beginning to wonder whether P3D is the best platform to really push the envelope with PBR, especially with metal. Light just doesn't seem to reflect off metal like it does in DSC.
DaveQ
Mach3DS
Charter Member
DaveQ, I've converted the XF-92A using MCX to use PBR. While you may not have the precise materials available via MCX it's darn close. Using a converted model will still give you great results, but you need to understand the Roughness Metallic file properties, and which layers do what. If you were using the source model file and an application like substance painter you could apply preset material values to your model parts quite easily. But you can still do a fairly good job on MCX conversions. The main problem that P3D currently faces is that it's not completely PBR compliant. While the engine can process using PBR, it's still the old FSX framework. Once P3Dv5 or whatever iteration is released with a new GFX engine it should provide much better lighting than is currently being used.
Mach3DS
Charter Member
DaveQ, you're right though lighting is not the same in P3D. DCS uses a graphics rendering method called "Deferred shading". P3D, I'm not sure. I know the lighting is now "Dynamic lighting" meaning, as far as I understand it, that instead of having a global lighting source the lighting now has an intensity and direction. But it doesn't illuminate the objects in P3D the same way that previous versions of FSX or DCS do. I find the current method in P3D pretty dark by comparison. I think we'll see the magic happen when P3D introduces the new GFX engine.
What I'm always interested in, with a paint kit, is something that separates the panel lines an rivets and the dirt layers and the AO into their own layers. That will allow anyone who wants to create their own Roughmets enough flexibility to do so (I think...LOL).
What I'm always interested in, with a paint kit, is something that separates the panel lines an rivets and the dirt layers and the AO into their own layers. That will allow anyone who wants to create their own Roughmets enough flexibility to do so (I think...LOL).
DaveQ
Charter Member
Thanks Sundog, and it's the SSW one. I still think it lacks subtlety myself but it'll have to do for now. And I think Alessandro, their lead painter is working with PBR and there may be an official version of this some time.
I agree with Rick about what I need in a paint kit - panel lines, rivets and accurate stencil work, those things all examples of an aircraft would have in common. Also I find a wireframe labelled map of parts really useful. After that maybe dirt layers (not my forte!) The rest can be painted and for me that's where the fun lies.
DaveQ
Mach3DS
Charter Member
Ah yes, wireframe.... absolutely indispensable!
The basic difference is that you're not repainting a single layer as we did a while ago, or two layers with Alphas for FSX and earlier versions of P3D; you need to work on every single material layer and that's going to be an absolute pain for most repainters.
Whether you're using Metalness (P3D) or Roughness (the PBR packages that I've worked with for years), you have to work on every single layer to get the "right" effect on a model. Most developers use packages to apply materials directly to the model, which is then exported to create the texture files as they are seen by end users.
I think we're likely to see a lot of repaints that only work on one or two layers and just try and create general fudges fir the rest, personally.
My answer to Baz would have to be that he can only release what he's comfortable releasing commercially. As long as it has a wireframe layer, it's going to have to be up to the repainter how much work they're prepared to do on what they're given.
I can see an opening here for someone to create a "FSRepaint" or Substance/Quixel style application that can read the P3Dv4 .MDL format and allow materials to be applied directly to a model, but how you'd isolate different parts of the .MDL format file I don't know, to apply materials to them.
Ian P.
Whether you're using Metalness (P3D) or Roughness (the PBR packages that I've worked with for years), you have to work on every single layer to get the "right" effect on a model. Most developers use packages to apply materials directly to the model, which is then exported to create the texture files as they are seen by end users.
I think we're likely to see a lot of repaints that only work on one or two layers and just try and create general fudges fir the rest, personally.
My answer to Baz would have to be that he can only release what he's comfortable releasing commercially. As long as it has a wireframe layer, it's going to have to be up to the repainter how much work they're prepared to do on what they're given.
I can see an opening here for someone to create a "FSRepaint" or Substance/Quixel style application that can read the P3Dv4 .MDL format and allow materials to be applied directly to a model, but how you'd isolate different parts of the .MDL format file I don't know, to apply materials to them.
Ian P.