That’s the problem. Adjusting doesn’t do anything here. The screw is drawn behind even though it’s geometrically in front.
Whatch the entire thing. Your issue is covered and explained in the 1.8 video, hence why I posted it.
1 Like
Oh I see, I’ll do that then.
Edit: Thanks, that helped.
1 Like
Maybe it’s worth bugging the devs about having control over alpha sorting, but I don’t see it happening, as it’s such a niche issue. Also, I’m not sure if it’s actually possible. I’d assume it’s determined like it is right now for performance reasons.
I faintly remember there being an operator that did manual sorting according to several possible criteria, but that was a very long time ago, and I don’t know if it would be at all useful in this case.
Edit: Ah, it’s still there. Sort Mesh Elements. However, on second thought, that would probably fix triangles on one side, while breaking it on the other side. Oh well.
Actually I just realized, sorting is simply origin based. So just move the decal along Z a bit.
This works for projected decals too, although the axis will be different. Also, note that I prevent moving projected decals, but you can just drag the values a bit, without having to unlock the transform.
1 Like
Haha. That actualy works! Thanks!
1 Like
Can still be problematic though, you you change the view angle in a way that brings the other origin closer. But yeah I like this better than having to use hashed alpha.
If you still want to bug the devs, there’s a thing called ‘Order Independent Depth Sorting’. or ‘Order Independent Transparency’ as Nvidia calls it in their Gameworks middleware.
Edit; http://developer.download.nvidia.com/assets/gamedev/docs/OrderIndependentTransparency.pdf if anyone else is interested.
Not that I think you’d have anything to do with this, @MACHIN3, but I figured I’d butt in and at least say that it’s not a niche problem!
2 Likes
Eh, they’ll probably just say we already have hashed transparency and that’s that. And they wouldn’t really be wrong to say that, except that these decals are a bit of a weird edge case.
I’m new to DM and wanted to use it for my gamedev tasks. And I’m stuck with this problem. I cant find a way for decals to have a specific texel density on a final atlas. For example I need 10 px/cm, but there is no option for decals to remember physical size. And when I pack them on atlas they will be placed according to their size in pixels.
There is no such thing as one physical size. Any single decal can be any size you scale them in your scene.
When atlasing only the actual texture size (determined at decal creation) are taken into account.
You are free to scale decals down in the atlas to whatever size you need them to be however.
1 Like
uh, that is sad. So for now the best way for me is to adjust them manually and change ATLAS_BG texture to checker image for my current texel density.
Hi! Loving DecalMachine so far. Ran into a hitch when trying to create an atlas with my selection. It’s saying “Atlas could not be created because no source images could be found”
The images show in the viewport, and in the shading dialog nodes I can go to the “open image” folder icon and it shows the files are on disk. Any idea what could be going wrong?
It’s not sad. This is the point of using decals - using very little texture space you can have high-res details. A specific texel size would make no sense because all decals of the same type share texture space, and each decal can have a different size.
You can however unwrap your model at whatever texel density you like and bake your decals down.
1 Like
anyone know how to fix this issue?
Ah, will do. Thanks!
Continuing the discussion from DECALmachine:
Hi! Is it possible to paint mesh with applied trims in the substance painter?
P.S. I know, i can paint trims first then apply them on the mesh.
Yes you can do that. You can also paint on the trim sheet directly. Note that due to the repeated use of individual trims on the mesh, any painting done on a trim, will be aplied to all areas that trim was used.