I wanted to share a project a that a group of us has been working on for the past few months. We’d love to hear what the community thinks. We offer PBR / Game ready textures and RAW assets. Our pricing model is separated into 2 sections. We have a pay-as-you-go option, where you can pay for what you want and a subscription option for those who want larger scale access.
We want to make it known, that we’re in the process of converting the remaining part of our library to PBR.
Our goal is to continue innovating both our platform and our asset creation, and we’re hungry for criticism!
Signup now using coupon code tfearly and get 50% off your 1st month!
I visited your site but the textures are not PBR at all, and honestly pretty low quality.
The metals look like plastic, and the fabrics, stones, woods etc are obviously texture conversions (probably using NDO judging by the results). It is becoming very tiresome to see so many services jumping on the ‘PBR’ bandwagon without actually understanding what PBR means. Please do your homework before offering such content to the public.
It is not my intention to be destructive or hostile, and I feel that my complaint/ criticism is a valid one. Most of the texture services I see being offered so far that claim to be PBR truthfully are not, including one, and suggesting that a prospective PBR content service conduct due diligence in researching and understanding what PBR means so that they may effectively apply that knowledge to their offerings before releasing them to the community ‘is’ constructive from my perspective.
These feel quite hit or miss. Many materials hardly look like what they’re trying to represent. Like the metals on the first page (The Metal ---- Scratches) for example, they’re more or less the same thing with different base color, which seems very lazy and the result is sub par with the rest of the marketplace. For the price you’re asking (the same as the whole UE engine) you’d expect top notch quality with perfect material representations.
They look pretty good to me. The metals just need a better material setup (the textures look good). And as someone mentioned, the site itself is very nice and easy to use.
Fair enough. But it is better to explain to them what they are doing wrong and telling the OP what you expect from them, which I think is exactly they are looking for when they said ‘We’d love to hear what the community thinks’. So instead of outright telling them that the textures/materials are not good, tell them what you expected and why you find it lacking. will help the OP to improve their offering and in turn will help the community as well.
I’m actually not a huge fan of the website’s organization system. It would be nicer if those materials were arranged alphabetically or had more categories (or better yet, have categories you could avoid seeing, like if you want to see every material that isn’t a type of metal).
I would love to explain what is being done incorrectly and how to improve upon it, but that would require writing an in-depth paper on PBR theory and application, something that I do not feel I should be required to do when a paid service is claiming to be a ‘PBR Texture Library’ and such resources are numerous on the Internet already.
To summarize though:
1.) As mentioned in my first comment, these textures are clearly photo conversions into normal maps (using NDO judging by the results) which means that the normal map detail is not accurate and can not light realistically because it has been converted from photo source and not baked from physical.
2.) Most of the library appears to have lighting information baked into the albedo textures. Since albedo represents the unlit base color only, means that they also can never light correctly.
3.) The specular response on most of the materials is clearly not based off of PBR data. The metals do not look metallic, and almost all of the materials (including rock) have a similar roughness and reflectivity range to various forms of plastic.
Once again, I apologize if I came off a little harsh, but I joined up yesterday expecting big things from the Unreal Marketplace, and was honestly rather let down and disillusioned to see so many materials claiming to be PBR yet missing the mark so dramatically. The concept of PBR is one that is still very confusing to many developers, and it does not help matters when the waters are continually muddied by service providers giving misinformation, or worse, profiting off of those who don’t know the difference yet.
My name is Marcus. Yes, I just joined yesterday, but not to criticize. thread was at the top of the forum and (unfortunately) happened to be the first thing that I read. I was expecting more here and honestly pretty let down by what I saw. Thankfully there seems to be a lot of other great stuff coming to the marketplace soon. And even more surprisingly, some of it actually seems to be PBR.
Thank you for your feedback. Our artists have identified an with certain metal gloss/roughness maps, which are inverted. We are working on replacing all the effected maps and should be up and replaced shortly.
Regarding the PBR. We do not claim anywhere on the site that our library is full PBR, and it’s identified in our post as well.
We have taken every step to remove as much lighting information as possible in our albedo maps. We really appreciate any type of feedback, but those are assumptions that cannot be made purely based off of our renders.
We’d love to see some examples of some of the rock textures that you felt are “plasticity” so we can look into and evaluate if there is a problem.
**UPDATE
We understand the concerns with the way we’ve presented the metals, and have decided to totally revamp the metal assets in a more appropriate way to address the concerns of the community.
