Baked normal map from marmoset toolbag 3 cannot see in maya

#Baked normal map from marmoset toolbag 3 cannot see in maya Patch#

It helps to switch off filtering for the textures, which I did for all textures in the right image. It seems that SP renders a lot crisper though (and I found the same between SP and Marmoset Toolbag). It took some fiddeling and experimenting, but this is what I got initially: Image 8: setup for a metallic surface (The roughness on that extra layer should go down to 0.) Here is where those mila_materials work pretty nice you can just add another glossy specular layer on the one that is handling your metal look. Now I'm not sure if they should be there in the real world, but I like that bit of extra shine we get with the SP shader, so I thought I'd just reproduce it in MR. Not when working with a single fresnel pass anyway. Another difference actually is that blueish rim-light you see on top that actually shouldn't be there. The metal turns out a bit darker in MR, but that is fine. These are the christmas balls I got, left SP, right MR: Then I amped up the IOR all the way to 20. So with this test I set diffuse to black, and set the otherwise white spec value to our nice rubber ball red. That means that any diffuse values get transferred to the specular map for metals. Getting ahead a bit to render SP maps in mental ray, you will need to output them as diffuse/specular maps, as intended for the specular workflow. Left side SP with 0% metallic, right side some mental ray renders.ДЎ.2 was too dim, 1.5 too glossy 1.4 seemed just about right to me. Anyway, first step is to get that non-metallic look to be the same. The substance folks have some really nice documentation on PBR, including some information on what to do with IOR. But thats ok there is a fresnel IOR slider. There is no Metallic slider on the mila_material. Personally, I like the rimlight a white spec creates on rough surfaces in MR, so I hooked this inverse roughness up through a very high gamma so only the very high values (say, 0.9 and over) start to eat away at that rim-light effect (mainly to prevent that weird velvet fresnel you see happening with the 100% roughness in image 2).

Not exactly the same results, but it looks pretty good to me. I went with a gut feeling and hooked up the inverse of the roughness through the same gamma correction and connected that the the specular tint. Whatever the case, a gamma correction of somewhere between 2.2 and 2.4 gives a good result (I prefer 2.4 myself, I want that roughness to really show)ДЄlso, noticed how the higher roughness values leave the renders in MR much more shiny? It seems that in SP the specular values are toned down as roughness goes up. also, a gloss map seems to be the inverse of roughness in sRGB space, while inversing it in linear space should give a totally different outcome. Now I'm not entirely sure how SP was intended to work (and I am no expert on all this gamma stuff), but I've also noticed that in Marmoset, the gloss map needs to be flagged as 'sRGB space' to have the correct effect. So I played a bit with the values there, and ended up settling with a gamma value of 2.2.Haha.ДЇor anyone who ever did anything with gamma correction, this value should sound familiar. Let's ditch the value remap, and try a gamma correction node instead. What I got after some fiddling around is something that looked like this:ДЄnd I thought to myself, that looks a lot like a gamma curve.

#Baked normal map from marmoset toolbag 3 cannot see in maya Patch#

I figured I make a custom attribute on my sphere in maya, and patch it through a value remap node into the roughness on the mila_material, and see just remap the input values somewhat to have that custom value correspond properly with the SP roughness value. So, at first glance, the 40% roughness in SP seems to correspond with about 75% roughness in mental ray.