Hey, I have few questions.
Nowdays PBR workflow is standard in most of games? Should I learn PBR workflows? Or maybe standard texturing is still good and many of studios use it?
(I don’t have money for programs like Quixel etc)
Yes. Use PBR. It’s easier, quicker, you’ll get better results, it’s a standard so what looks good in one game engine will still look good in another engine, it works for realistic and some stylized games. There’s no reason you shouldn’t learn it.
Hmm okay:/ Do you know any good blogs or tutorials with how to make step by step good PBR assets? I found my(standard technique) workflow few days ago but PBR is very different for me, and I don’t see much simillarities.(Step by step with free software)
It is possible to make PBR with free software without Quixel, 3d Coat, Marmoset, Substance Painter or Mudbox?
Yes. It’s just a different set of textures. So if you can make diffuse/specular/normal and so on maps for the old workflow you can do the same for PBR.
If anything PBR is less work. 
I haven’t actually read this as I already understand PBR. But a quick google threw up this, for UE4, might be worth a read: PBR Tutorial Series - Community & Industry Discussion - Epic Developer Community Forums
Edit:
Just noticed that that mentions Quixel and Marmoset. But the point stands. If you can create textures for the traditional workflow you can create them for PBR.
I tried it, and It looks a lot worse than my old standard technique(and my standard isn’t beautiful;x) seems like roughness map dont work. Model is very shiny, with simple 1constant looks better, but it isn’t “true” PBR;x
Show us a screenshot of your material in UE4 and the resulting asset in UE4.
You can see how it reflect.
It is very simple shader(I’m noob yet), I reduced Shadows in albedo, and made Glossy and Specular as in thread.
Try removing the specular. You don’t really need that for UE4. It’s there so it can be used, obviously – but I’m not really sure what purpose it serves. That might be messing with your end result.
Also, when googling for information etc, it’s important to note that UE4 uses a Metal/Roughness PBR workflow. Unity/Cry use Spec/Gloss flows.
I also dug this up for you. You may have already seen it. But it’s a good introduction to materials in UE4 and it explains the basics of UE4’s PBR workflow and what the different texture maps mean in context.
When I delete specular, then it become very reflective:/
I just noticed your roughness map is very dark. The darker your roughness value the smoother the surface. The smoother the surface the more it reflects. Brighten it up. You have to think more in terms of surface detail with PBR. It’s not just a case of dropping 0 on metal and that’ll kill reflection. It doesn’t work that way. The brighter your roughness the less it will reflect. The roughness map controls the surface detail in terms of how smooth, or how coarse, it is at a micro-scopic( not really ) level.
As you can see in the video I posted before. The lower the roughness value the smoother the surface is. So a roughness value of 0, for example, would reflect like a mirror. Whereas a value of 1 would not reflect at all.
I used one minus on the roughness, and works better.
Glad to hear it. I know PBR is a little alien. I spent years with the old workflow, and I’m not an artist, so it took me a while to figure out how PBR works. The metal/rough values work together. Neither one specifically controls reflections or highlights – at least as far as I understand it. It’s worth your time to just keep tapping away at it and eventually it’ll click. Once you get it it’s so much easier than the traditional way and it provides much better results.
Computer graphics (until PBR) were rubbish.
Graphics were using values which bore no resemblance to actual materials, they were a semblance. A fake, a forgery. If you were ask an artist to make a wood material, they would do something like ‘crank up’ the specular, decrease this exponent value and lower the bump of that value against the power of blah-de-blah.
It wasn’t the slightest bit realistic. It didn’t use any math based on actual physical materials. It was, as John Carmack called it, a ‘dark art’ understood by few but painfully and forceably placed upon artists for no reason other than trying to ‘fudge’ what the material was, rather than correctly represent the material for what it is.
Roughness now means how rough something is. If it’s 1, it’s rough. If it’s 0, it’s not.
The same for every other channel. So instead of putting nonsensical and mathematically implausible numbers and figures to fake a material, you are making the *actual *material.
The biggest benefit from this is lighting and baking, as light bouncing around a scene will work correctly, instead of the old DX9 days when an artist would have to manually adjust everything, every material, because the level chief said to make a room brighter. After the room lighting was increased, all the materials didn’t work and the artist would get stuck in a loop, perpetually changing those nonsense values until they *looked *right. Now, you can change the lighting and the materials will react correctly.
This has made the job of an environment artist a lot simpler, as they are mostly now working with lighting more and more, rather than endlessly tweaking material values. They are being creative! A creative artist being creative? Who would’ve thought! It also gives them more control at the front end, as using tools/utilities from Allegorithmic and Quixel are giving artists complete confidence *prior *to integration, that texturing will yield near identical results. So, demonstrating proof of concept work prior to material creation, will mean a *significantly *more accurate representation of what the final environment will look like.
Enjoy this new world, it bears delicious fruits.