From what I understand, I found out today that megascans have been moved to fab.com with a few exceptions at Quixel Bridge. However, am I to believe that instead of downloading from Quixel and then one-click adding it to our project, we now have to download from fab then export materials in their separate textures so that we now have to rebuild the material in Unreal??? If Im missing something, please help me as I find this method very counter-intuitive for UE users. Is there a button for adding straight to project from fab? If our library at Quixel is still available, can’t we just download at fab.com so they show up at the Quixel library so we can just add them to project from there? Any help, I would greatly appreciate.
It’s just an impression at this stage, but your description seems to be correct. But - surely this can’t be right? Where’s the logic in taking what appears to be a major step backwards in productivity and undermining one of Quixel’s USPs? I can’t make any sense of it, unless I’m really missing the point. Increasing cost and reducing functionality - unclear as to how this is a step forward? I would be absolutely delighted to be proven wrong and corrected on this issue!
3 Likes
I’m also a little bit frustrated actually about fab workflow) Bridge was a masterpiece in case of productivity, and fab is losing in a lot of aspects. Pretty sure that developers had some reasons for that
I’m in the same boat. What was once a 1-click process to export a material to the modeler of our choice (in my case 3dsMax), it’s now a 10+ minute process of building the material from scratch, then dialing in the parameters to get the look just right. It seems like there should be a Fab software similar to Bridge. I’ve even noticed that the folder naming scheme is different from Bridge. It would be a workaround if Bridge could recognize Fab-downloaded assets in the same location Bridge downloaded to.