Sure, how about this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcwDAoegKsg&index=2&list=PLB0wXHrWAmCzTXeyYT5Vy3ds711ZRHRYh
It’s pretty basic. The guy spends a lot of time explaining, but it’s altogether some 5-10 minutes work. If you can recreate the result in Blender at all, never mind in 10 minutes, I’ll be very impressed.
You are right that the future of Substance is depending on Adobe and this might cause their demise in one way or another. And i am not really optimistic for their future (or for their future customers dealing with Adobe).
Right now, there is no open source or proprietary alternative, Substance under Adobe is still the market leader when it comes to the video game industry and it will probably grow in the VFX industry as well as long as it is a useful tool.
It does not. You cannot simply throw the revenue of the gaming industry in the same pot as the revenue of companies who earn their money by selling 3D artist tools. I mean you can, but it makes no sense to me. What are saying? Making video games is more profitable than creating tools for artist? Sure, and you point is?
The majority of mainstream video game companies use proprietary tools, with a little-bit of open source sprinkled here and there. That’s hardly the same as being dominated by them.
Also Unreal is not open source in the strict sense of the work. You get access to the source code, but its still a propitiatory engine.
nope, all the latest pushes for innovation in the 3D sector comes from the industry itself or from private companies.
I am really tempted to answer to this one. I probably shouldn’t.
Nothing specific, but the official ones from their Youtube channel are all good.
No you shouldn’t, my point is not to say Blender is best blah blah to argue that its one thing to extend the texture and material features of a material and textures applications and another for a general 3d app. The code is more versatile so as a developer allow you to mix different things even at Python. level. For example Blender extended to sculpting but it never became a Zbrush replacement yet its sculpting is quite good but not that good. ZBrush tried to extend to polygon editing and what we got was not just inferior to Blender but just plain mess. Its not easy to generalize a specialized application but it is easy to specialize a general application.
Most unreal restrictions have to do with modding which almost no games does nowdays. They have some stupid restriction in trying to sell their editor as part of a game , even modified. Yeah its open source but the license is restrictive and plain stupid. So its not free software.
Also for the record I am talking money. Innovation needs research, research needs a lot of people working it, people want to get paid. You seriously think that Autodesk has the research department of Nvidia or Epic games ? Games have fueled computer evolution for decades. The reason you have powerful computer working hard on finding cure on cancer, technology advanced enough to helps us go to Mars is because of countless kids wanting to melt their computer playing Crysis for the laughs.
Are you going sit there seriously and claim that 3d apps drive innovation ? With what… the peanuts they are making ? As if 90% of innovation is not hardware anyway, because games. What was the latest craze of this decade ? VR and AR , where is mostly used ? …
No problemo , thanks, watching now 
I have the feeling that a lot of people will continue to use Substance Painter for the same reason that a lot of people continue to use Photoshop.
Well of course they will. Heck, I will continue to use it myself, even if I don’t resub a year from now. It is best in class after all. At least for the moment.
You are going off a tangent and start to compare apples and oranges.
IDGAF about hardware, we are talking about software innovations in the 3D industry. I made the point that these innovations are made by the industry like Weta or Disney/Pixar etc…, a domination of open source software is nowhere to be seen.
There are open source formats dominating in the industry, made by the industry. But i wouldn’t count these as great examples of how open source is a better alternative when these are made by big companies and Blender barely has half of them implemented.
Yes, as long as the product and the price is good.
Even if the development slows down, as long as there is no alternative that goes heads and toes against Substance, people will use it.
Yeah I agree 100% I am not trying to claim that SS is going away any time soon and its not as if there is a good alternative right now anyway. I was talking about long term , like a couple of years from now.
For the record I watched the tutorial, no doubt well optimized UI but nothing that Blender cannot do. Speed wise, yeah SS has the edge no doubt, the UI is specially designed for this, so no surprise there.
Are you serious? We all complain about Maya but at the end of the day the industry wants Maya to be exactly what it is. Maya exists because of all the research, development and testing that the industry itself has put into the software. When Maya was first developed it was developed with input from Disney’s animation studio which was working on Dinosaurs at the time. It was developed with input from ILM (when the Episode 1 was being worked on), from Digital Domain, Ryhthm and Hues, PIXAR and countless others. It may not look it but Autodesk hires and pays for a lot of research and development in the CG industry, either directly or indirectly. A lot of it doesn’t end up in the tool because studios in the industry like to keep their stuff proprietary. Maya is a platform. It’s probably the most extensible, powerful 3D app at the moment and nothing else comes close.
Fabric Engine tried but failed to dethrone it. Houdini completely destroyed them with Houdini Engine.
Obviously, look at all the happy customers at the comment section
look how much they praise the new update, how overwhelmed they are from the trillion of dollars invested in top secret research bringing in a tsunami of new features. Look how happy they are with the evolution of Maya. How on earth I could seriously claim that Autodesk invest no money on research when clearly they take our breath away with their innovation…
and then look at this crap
look at the comment section
Users disgusted with Unreal, desperation everywhere with the stagnation, almost no new features, having to pay thousands of dollars to use it, huge numbers of dislikes , not to exclude the massive difference on the view counts.
What I was even thinking 
PS: The comment section in Maya Overview video in Autodek’s YouTube channels is even more depressing. But I went with this video just out of respect of the people being scammed by this company.
Nothing of value?
Your attempt at humor falls flat and you have no real point.
Apples and Oranges again.
Your disdain for Autodesk is palpable, but i am willing to bet you’ve never used Maya in production.
Just like you never used Substance.
I’m surprised.
You’d think they’d have plenty of money to spend on R&D because of SD and SP’s monopoly on procedurally-driven texture authoring (when noting that every single competitor with a related focus has folded).
I guess the size of their userbase was a bit smaller than you would think.
So its not a point that people are complaining that Maya has stagnated for years ?
My beef with Autodesk is mostly because they killed my favorite 3d app Softimage. Softimage XSI defined the 3d apps for decades with its innovation. I never used Maya in production. But I do remember a time when Maya was truly awesome , when it was still an Alias product. A time I was drooling over its features and its pains to see it become a shadow of its old self.
I have nothing against Substance Painter so I fail to see your point there. No I have not used Substance Painter. On the other hand I never said that is a bad app or that Blender is better.
We all used to have huge respect for Maya then it was autodesked.
The sad part is that 3d studio was the first 3d app I used, back on my DOS day, then my second was 3d Studio MAX 1. I used to like Autodesk but then I started to use other applications. I did try Maya for a few days way before it was autodesked, loved the features but not the UI.
It was fine when I was paying then they made sure to complicate when unsubscribing. They took another extra month of me and I never got my money back. They said they would but I didn’t even bother as the Indian support center was a really bad experience. Will never use their services again just because of that one bad experience.
At least we have something in common. I don’t like Autodesk either, but i make a clear distinction between Autodesk the company and their products.
Look don’t take it personally, but i get kinda annoyed if people judge a software by hearsay or its reputation without having actually using it.
If you haven’t used Maya or Substance and other tools to compare them with, its not your call to judge them.
I have used Maya on and off for years and not even i can get a wholesome picture to judge it properly.
The complains about Maya coming from random people on the internet and freelancers are nearly worthless if you want to judge the program and its properties in an huge production environment (where it shines).
If you haven’t worked in big movie production company or similar you won’t get enough data to make a proper judgement.
And if you go there you’ll find that people who use Maya have a love and hate relationship with the program. I’ve encountered this phenomenon with many programs. You won’t find more harsher critics than those who use the tool daily. That’s why there is so much vitriol in the official forums. Same applies to C4d and Modo and Max (all stagnating and dying according to their user-base).
From the outside it always looks like the world is ending, but it isn’t.
The development of Software always follows a curve, in the beginning it’ steep and then it tapers off.
Even if the development of Maya is stagnating, Maya is still used and will be used until some other program can topple it from its throne, but there is none in sight.
The situation is not perfect, i wish XSI where still around, but it isn’t so we have to deal with it.
They basically implied that they could not revolutionize anything without Adobe’s money, which is utter bulls**t. 3D Coat has Andrew and a few helpers, and look what they have managed to accomplish. Blender is no different. Quixel has a small team and what they are doing with Mixer is amazing.
At the end of the day, I think they just wanted to become one of the “big boys” in the industry by joining Adobe or Autodesk. To them its like getting drafted into the major league from the minor league.
Allegorithmic’s CEO, Sebastian Deguy basically gushes over Adobe. In his Medium post following the sell out, he stated:
Adobe is a company I have admired my whole life, and if somebody had told me 17 years ago, when I launched the Allegorithmic adventure, “Seb, the company you are starting now, the team you will gather, the products you will all create, will one day be recognized by Adobe (yes, THE Adobe), so much so that they will come knocking at your door and ask you to lead their 3D initiative for them”
Now I have met Sebastian once, seemed like a nice guy. I had no idea though that he was basically living in a fantasy world. His fanboy attitude as it relates to Adobe is basically what lead him to offer all his work over to them on a silver platter, thinking they have nor can do no wrong.
He actually said this without intending for it to be a joke or sarcasm.
Adobe is famous for knowing how to turn acquisitions into successes. They don’t acquire to destroy, denature products and teams or lock markets.
The sell out was unnecessary, imo many of them just wanted to be with their industry “idols” thus betraying their userbase in the process.
Frankly I stopped caring a long time ago. I think its even the first time I stating that I hate Autodesk.
I simply don’t care anymore. I used to try any 3d app I could find, but after 2.5 I have happy enough with Blender not wanting to leave it.
Modo stagnating, recently visited the forums did not see such a comment. Seemed to be pretty happy users.
Blender can easily replace Maya, Blender already dominated in small studios anyway. I remember a survey ages ago and Blender was like the 4th most used 3d app with Blender 2.8 could easily become the 2nd. But then again I do not care that much as I said.
I like not having to use a gazillion of apps and instead use only one and I like even more that I don’t have a boss trying trying shove down my throat the 3d app of his choice. Perfection is boring for I do not care about that either.
I never liked open source’s high moral ground but after dealing professionally with big companies I decided to support open source anyway I can. I wish I could love Linux but it hates me more than I hate , but anything else I use is open source.
No i do not agree on learning curve , learning Sotimage and Truespace was a walk in the park. Deep yes but not difficult. Especially Truespace it was such a fun experience, but like Softimage they died, in its case it was Microsoft. So yeah big companies burned me two time… no more
With Blender it was a huge pain but I never become a harsh critic. I used to think Blender UI as the worst I ever used on a 3d app second only to Amapi. After 2.5 it became tolerable and in 2.7 I started to enjoy it. 2.8 is a bit of a mixed bag for me but I will say its a bit better. But I am drooling over Eevee like most Blender users.
In any case I have nothing against Maya users, my beef is with Autodesk , there is no way I will touch any of their product with a ten foot pole. Even if I tried Maya and found it 1000 times better than Blender , I would not even consider leaving Blender or buying Maya. I rather throw my money at Blender. So yeah I am biased.
After thinking about this for a bit, I do think they fall into the same ballpark. In fact I think the attainability leans more in favor of matching Substance, than it does Zbrush.
Zbrush brings high fidelity sculpting, advanced masking workflow and smooth but advanced brush behavior to the table, as well as performance.
Allegorithmic’s Substance Designer brings both Substance materials and procedural nodes. Painter brings a way to apply those substances and texture projection via layers and a basic brush system.
So where does Blender fit in all of this? Well with Sculpting, it could potentially add advanced masking capability (including polygroups) at some point, however achieving the same performance and details the brush system gives might not be attainable… for one big reason. Pixols. Pixols are a lot like Allegorithmic’s substances in that they contain a collection of data. Pixologic explains it as:
a proprietary “pixol” technology which stores lighting, color, material, and depth information for all objects on the screen.
They are essentially a type of voxels that exist in a 2.5D space. They are able to achieve a high level of detail with a low performance hit. Blender really isnt set up for this unfortunately. With whats available now, Blender can probably match or surpass what Mudbox or 3D Coat can pump out, but getting to where Zbrush is at is going to require something different in my opinion.
So what about Allegorithmic’s substances then? Well Substances are a lot easier to match in Blender. Procedurals and output nodes are already there, they just need to get buffed up considerably. Nodes to convert bump data to normal map, nodes for better manipulation and masking. I mean for the most part that’s what its going to boil down to, that and making the workflow smarter (smart nodes). If we want to take it a step further, be able to have a blender texture file that includes that data as well as normalized sliders to tweak individual components of the “substance alternative”.
With painter, well their texturing workflow is really not that impressive tbh. The brush system is rudimentary at best. The appeal is largely from the workflow. Photoshop like layers, easy material management via material and decal library and so forth.
We can basically see a semblance of this with ArmorPaint in Blender:
With regards to a good painting brush engine, well 3D Coat is leading the pack with that one.
To sum up my conclusion based on those comparisons, I do believe Substance isn’t in such a unique spot where it cannot be replaced via Blender. The only exception would probably be with how substance files are used in other applications such as Maya, Max, Modo, Unreal Engine… ect. For what its worth, we have seen Blend files in Unity, which means to some extent the same thing could happen if such specialized texture files could find their way into other applications, especially game engines.
Matching Zbrush is most likely going to be a lot harder due to the nature of Pixols and how well they work with sculpting finer detail. I could be wrong on all of this, but I find zbrush harder to match than Substances, which are not as hard to emulate imo.
On that note, this is what Quixel is showing off with their new mixer software. Its hitting the same generalized area as Designer but with layers instead of nodes and an attempt at simplicity.
=)
Given enough Time you can reach zbrush even by the mere fact of hardware advancement . Blender can reach zbrush performance by sheer patients alone lol.
The same can be said for substance in 2 or 5 or even 10 years from now blender will be good enough and will be free. Even though substance will advance as well, at some point blender will be more than good enough for the majority of people and free. That leave substance with very small potential customer base .
The fact is a company that are making a strategy for the future have to think not about a year or 5 from now but 50 . Substance joining adobe is the right move in long term strategy .
Blender is all ready at there heals, it’s already taking bits from modo and lightwave user base …
The only way for substance at least to survive maybe in the added value category. By being bart of Adobe, they give adobe a little bit more appeal for creators. And adobe is an entrinched suite of products that sustain each other which can give substance long term survival
No you cannot, simply because of the fact that advanced hardware also benefits Z-Brush.
The gap in between never really closes, Z-Brush’s “pixol’s” will always perform better than pure geometry.
The good thing about Substance is that all of what they are doing is more or less known technology and its not copyright protected or safeguarded by patents.
Yes and there is an upper limit of good performance as will so at some point you wouldn’t notice or care. I admit I was trying to be funny though. …