Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The script is flexible enough it should be able to take any naming system from SP as you can define any acronym you want, which could even be something like "This is a long acronym"
Unfortunately, the script can only assign automatically to one channel. You can multi-select channels and then assign one of the files on the right easily though.
I don't plan to make another video at this time, sorry.
Thank you for your reply. Your tips were informative and I will be using them.
Thank you for making this product as manually doing all the assignments is a pain.
I'm looking forward to your next labor-saving script to add to my tools.
I am having nothing but problems with this product. Exports mess up the geometry of many objects and I cannot get any textures to automatically be applied back into Studio no matter how many times I adjust the parameters or rename the textures themselves. I will keep trying though, and if I can get it to work, I will try to post exactly what worked for me.
You're welcome!
I am sorry you are having difficulty!
I am not sure what you mean about Export messes up the geometry? How?
For the import, what are the filenames you are trying to import from SP? What is your file naming scheme?
Let's start with this (image attached). Why is only the Glossy Roughness map being automatically applied when all of these textures have the same naming convention? The Naming Scheme is attached as well, but I have tried many, MANY different combinations and only a few textures occasionally get applied. I've also renamed a few of the Aliases to what Substance Painter would normally export as, but that seems to only be working for the Glossy Roughness in this particular example.
Thanks for any help.
Alright I think I found the problem with the issue I mentioned above. One of the surfaces had an underscore in it, which blocked the script's ability to automatically apply the textures. That explains why your export script renames the surfaces. I don't particularly want to do that because then it screws up MATs created in DAZ Studio, but at least I know why it happens.
I'll do a bit more testing with the exported geometry, but for the three items I tested the export script on, it triangulated the mesh and caused problems in Substance Painter once the mesh maps were baked.
I am not sure the issue. The Substance Painter Assistant script renames surfaces for Substance Painter to comply with its needs. The Import Maps does not rename surfaces. Your file naming scheme uses {ObjectName}_{SurfaceName}_{ChannelName}. If you are saying that blocks its ability because your Surface Name is wrong, you don't have to use the {SurfaceName} substitution. You can explicitly name the bad surface (or just use the Anything button instead of SurfaceName, i.e., {ObjectName}_.*_{ChannelName}).
I have asked esha to comment on this.
Additional info from esha:
The procedure is this:
Yes, you will have to change the export settings in SP to match the acronyms used by the importer, or you can tweak the script to use your preferred acronyms. Since everybody uses different naming conventions it was impossible to find a setup that will work for all.
Is there any way to get back to the default list of acronyms used by the script?
Also, and I realize this is a bit beyond the scope of this product discussion, can I get some tips on adding maps to the output template in SP that would map to some of the non-obvious channels? For example, what would be the best input maps to use on the SP side if I wanted to use them for diffuse overlay or top coat? Any guidance or pointers to guidance would be appreciated.
Tim
If you are comfortable with RegEdit, you can search for Substance Painter Maps Import. The Channels key contains the current values. Deleting that will reset it.
I will have to pass this along to Esha. I don't know.
For this you have to be creative and think a bit out of the box, because SP doesn't offer all the channels Daz Studio has.
To start with the top coat example, are you going to use top coat together with the "regular" glossy layered weight and roughness channels? In some cases you might indeed need all of them but in other cases it might not be really necessary. It's easy to go overboard with the maps but very often all it does is eating up resources. I always try to use the smallest number of maps I can get away with.
If you use top coat only that leaves the Roughness map unused and you could use the roughness channel in SP for its maps.
If you really need both the regular gloss options plus top coat, you could (mis-)use one of the other channels in SP, for example emission (that's one I rarely use so I often appropriate it for other things).
You can re-assign any data you like to a channel, see screenshot below. So you can assign glossiness or roughness to the emissive channel and use the resulting map in the top coat slot.
In other cases, like the diffuse overlay, I run two rounds of exports. One for all the regular maps, a second one with a different file name suffix for special things like a dirt overlay.
For this I like to have several layers in SP which I can hide and show as I need, and different output templates.
Does that help?
Thank you both! Great information!
Can this tool handle skin textures from Substance which look like this:
DefaultMaterial_BaseColor.1001.png
DefaultMaterial_Normal.1001.png
DefaultMaterial_BaseColor.1002.png
DefaultMaterial_Normal.1002.png
In this case, for a G8.1 figure does it know to attach the UDIM 1001 to the face and ears ,1002 to the head and 1003 to the body?
No, SPA does not know that UDIM 1001 maps to face and ears, etc. If that was a standard numbering scheme, I could certainly add it though.
Great product. The first phase is flawless.
Having some trouble getting the map assignments to work "automatically". I've got my file naming down (objectName_ChannelAcronym), but nothing matches up by itself. Am I missing something here? I'm fine with the file naming being a little liberal (its showing more than matches)...but it seems like it should be applying these. I can take the manual route... it is still a lot quicker. But, I'd like to know if I am doing something wrong that I can fix to get this to work as advertised.
Please show the file naming scheme on the Options tab.
I just hit the Rescan button, and it matches everything up. Of course the regular expression on the Options tab has to be correct, too.
Tim
I had to change the object name to object name no spaces to get anything to show up with the filter check box.
Based on your naming scheme, the object that you selected must have the name "Harness01". More likely, your object name is "Harness" and it is not matching because the "01" does not match with anything. Try briefly changing your naming scheme to:
{ObjectName}01_{ChannelAcryonym}
(UGH! I can't stand that I mispelled acronym but you need to use what the script expects
)
I have not tried that yet, but... I am having the same problem with something that does NOT have anything appended to it.
I notice that the Node Name and Node Label are not the same (Scene Identification). Could this be the problem? Or is it still something I am not seeing?
That's it. If the Node Label and Node Name are different, you need to make sure to use the Node Name.
Ah! I am glad you found it. Yes, name and label are different and SBA considers them so.
Usage tip. I THINK this is fine. Maybe there's something I am missing.
You don't have to name your _low obj file using that naming convention. If you leave off _low (and you are using Node Name, see above), just remove the _low from the the low poly version in the Baking parameters.
Then, in your export setup you can just use the variable $mesh_BB, etc... saves a lot of time.
Perhaps a better way is to name the Project the same as the Node Name and then use $project in your export instead of $mesh....
And does anyone know how to get opacity to actually work? Say using one of the "perforated" materials from Substance Source?
The opacity maps I generate are... correct. They are simple black and white maps, but they do not contain the opacity information from the substance.
Thank you for sharing your tips. I do not know Substance Painter. I will ask @esha.
You need to use a shader that supports opacity in Shader Settings.
I use "pbr-metal-rough-with-alpha-blending".
Then, in Texture Set Settings, check if the Opacity channel is present.
If not, click the + sign and add it.
The shader type applies to the entire project. But you need to add the channel for each texture set that needs Opacity (you can also remove it if it is on a texture set where you don't use it).
Does that help?
I dunno.... it didn't work. And then it did. I swear I was doing exactly the same thing in setting up the export. But apparently I didn't. Either way, I have an export template that works now.