Author Topic: Quixel Megascans  (Read 13811 times)

2016-08-25, 11:54:30

johnymrazko

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
    • johny.mrazko.visualization
I started to play around with new release of megascans but am not getting desired results - for example https://megascans.se/assets/pftoo0 looks this flat when opened in megascans studio. Could anybody point out what am I doing wrong?


2016-08-25, 13:08:53
Reply #1

johan belmans

  • Primary Certified Instructor
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 722
    • View Profile
    • belly.be
I cannot help you, but I find it quite expensive.

2016-08-25, 13:11:44
Reply #2

Jadefox

  • Primary Certified Instructor
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
    • Renderlab
Hi There

I am having exactly the same problem. The free scan of the cracked ground I managed to look good
but yes the vegetation is very flat to me as well even when the displacement is set to 15 cm inside corona displacement.

Hopefully, somebody could shed some light with a little tutorial.

Another question is when I slot in the specular and gloss maps do I keep the levels on 1 ? I understand that the fresnel should be in accordance, but
how do I know what those spec and gloss levels need to be ?
Eyeball ?
Another question , when do I invert the gloss map and why ?


and Yes at 15 points and at a limit of 2000 pix at my package I am wondering if it is really worth it

Hope to hear from you guys


2016-08-25, 13:46:22
Reply #3

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 9029
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
I started to play around with new release of megascans but am not getting desired results - for example https://megascans.se/assets/pftoo0 looks this flat when opened in megascans studio. Could anybody point out what am I doing wrong?
Are you sure that your result is really different than the one of their website? Maybe it's just different lighting? I can see that in your screenshot there is some height variation too.

2016-08-25, 14:16:21
Reply #4

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
I like the idea of the megascans, but for things like grass and foliage wouldn't the detailed displacement cause massive memory consumption and make the final render slower than just using scattered + instanced grass? Not to mention the issue of the scans not looking all that good at grazing angles.
Vray who?

2016-08-25, 14:30:36
Reply #5

johnymrazko

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
    • johny.mrazko.visualization
belly - I don´t know - the textures are very good, as well as the scans. I just can not make the grass work like in their preview, be it because of low displ. detail or whatever

Jadefox - gloss and specular should be 1 - glossiness amount is controled directly by gloss map

maru - my results are horrible when rendered - on their clay preview you can clearly see nice 3D mesh but I do not know how to achieve that

agentdark45 - maybe you are right, however when foliage would be real 3D thing for scattering even if scanned it would be great

2016-08-25, 15:02:34
Reply #6

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 9029
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
maru - my results are horrible when rendered - on their clay preview you can clearly see nice 3D mesh but I do not know how to achieve that
With Max and Corona? Are you loading greyscale stuff like bump maps and displacement with gamma set to 1? (gamma override in the load bitmap window)

2016-08-25, 15:52:34
Reply #7

johan belmans

  • Primary Certified Instructor
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 722
    • View Profile
    • belly.be
belly - I don´t know - the textures are very good, as well as the scans. I just can not make the grass work like in their preview, be it because of low displ. detail or whatever

Maybe my post wasn't that well formulated?
I just mean that I did not play with Megascans so I cannot help you with your problem.
But I find it rather an expensive service for small studios. I hope someone else can help you.
Good luck!

2016-08-25, 16:15:46
Reply #8

johnymrazko

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
    • johny.mrazko.visualization
Maru - thanks for pointing out - so should I override gamma each time I am loading greyscale texture?

belly - thanks a lot

I tested grass a bit and this is the most I could make out of it - on very densely tesselated mesh.



I am not sure how to correctly set up displacement - as it does not look good by just using deisplacement map - here I mixed it with ambient occlusion to add more detail

2016-08-25, 16:22:27
Reply #9

Jadefox

  • Primary Certified Instructor
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
    • Renderlab
That looks good in all honesty..
Just to add to your question? Should bump,normal and
displacement maps always be set to gamma 1.0

2016-08-25, 16:46:33
Reply #10

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 9029
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
The render looks good. When I played with Quixel materials, here is what I did:

diffuse: Corona Mix with a mix of diffuse map (albedo) and AO map (multiply or overlay, I don't remember :S )
reflection: specular map (with gamma 1.0)
glossiness: gloss map (with gamma 1.0)
bump: bump map (with gamma 1.0)
displacement: displacement map (with gamma 1.0)
Then I adjusted reflection amount and fresnel IOR to make it look more or less ok.
I also adjusted displacement height to make it look good.

You can then play with displacement quality in render setup, but usually the default value of 2px should work fine.

That looks good in all honesty..
Just to add to your question? Should bump,normal and
displacement maps always be set to gamma 1.0
No. It depends on the file. You should either use what looks good, or what looks correct. :)

Here is an example:
Max scene:


Results:

2016-08-25, 17:00:54
Reply #11

Jadefox

  • Primary Certified Instructor
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
    • Renderlab
Here is my take on it.... Will retry with Maru's settings

2016-08-25, 17:22:04
Reply #12

Ricky Johnson

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
I don't think you're supposed to use the Specular maps at all with the CoronaMtl as it exists presently. It's a value for head on reflectivity for PBR set ups that don't specify an IOR value. I think.

Aside from the material settings, is the example of the cut grass from their site supposed to be achievable with displacement?
It seems as though there are gaps underneath the blades of grass. With displacement on a plane I'd expect it to look more like the tests that have been posted. Don't know if I'm missing something.


2016-08-25, 18:01:55
Reply #13

Rhodesy

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 447
    • View Profile
Have you guys got Quixel accounts already? I have downloaded some scans in the free section but no idea how to access the studio for free. The only way it would seem to create a quixel account is to subscribe is that right?

2016-08-25, 21:02:32
Reply #14

johnymrazko

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
    • johny.mrazko.visualization
Ricky how else would you achieve that other than with maps that are available for download ?