@MarisFreimanis Thanks a lot, I have added an item for us to look at that.
Hi Sebastien,
Any update with my case?
best,
Hi,
I have added an item for us to look at that last time. But there is no ETA for the fix. Substrate is experimental and we have lots to do in our prioritised list. Thanks for understanding.
Is there an ETA for substrate to become default setting(assuming that is the goal)? Or when can we expect substrate to be production ready?
Could you please add an additional Specular Color Pin. Please for the love of god allow us to have this option. This would not ruin the PBR workflow but adds more possibilities… I don’t want to recompile the whole engine just for this feauture.
2 Likes
@UElaci
The plan is for substrate to replace the current material system.
No real ETA I can provide sorry. I can only say it won’t happen this year. We are working hard to reach that goal after, as early as possible.
@apfelbaum
For the non-substrate workflow? If this is what you mean then sorry but my answer is simply no. The current GBuffer cannot handle that and this will only be happening with Substrate.
2 Likes
@Harlanq1990 I tested on our latest (5.4) which should be very close to 5.3, and I can’t reproduce the issue neither with ShadowMap or VirtualShadowMap. Here are the tests with different MFP values.
ShadowMap
VirtualShadowMap
Note that with ShadowMap we quality drop very quickly as you move away from the camera (cascade 1 seems to be really low res).
Translucent Material Receive and Cast Shadows
Hey guys need help.
I created substrate material following this tutorial, but would like the translucent surface to receive and cast shadows.
The behavior should be the same with or without Subsutrate.
You will need first to change the Lighting Mode to ForwardShading on the material, and then enable Cast Dynamic Shadow as Masked.
Hi Charles,
Thanks for your support. I did the test between 5.1 and 5.2. And I just check the result in 5.3,the bug is gone, same result just like 5.1.
- Just curious what happen with 5.2 substrate so if you don’t mind check that in 5.2? Sorry for the demanding request.
- And I do find another difference with 5.3,which call Substrate opaque material rough refraction. Not sure what it is but it gave me a weird result with button on in 5.3. But it keeps same result with on/off in 5.2! Could you explain what it is and when should I use that? Again why it different between 5.2 and 5.3…
Testing in a empty scene with one single directional light.
Best,
Hi Charles, thanks.
Is it possible to mix lit and unlit shader on substrate with alpha mask or sphere mask?
We will not check older releases for an experimental feature. We move forward onto the next releases.
Thanks for reporting the problem with opaque rough refraction. This is also experimental within Substrate. We already have an item to look at that and fix.
As of today, you would have to make F0 and Diffuse=0 and use an the emissive color to have the same look as an unlit (or mix two slabs according to the mask with parameter blending for instance). We cannot yet mix an Unlit and Slab node within the same graph.
An overview of Substrate material system is now available: Overview of Substrate Materials in Unreal Engine | Unreal Engine 5.3 Documentation.
1 Like
I don’t know where to go for documentation bugs but at the provided link, under the section " Metalness and Specular Response (Non-Metalness and Parameterization)" Albedo is misspelled as Alebdo (italicized):
Metalness is emulated using the Substrate Metalness-To-DiffuseAlbedo-F0 Helper node. It takes BaseColor, Specular, and Metallic values as inputs and converts them to values which map to DiffuseAlebdo and F0 on the Substrate Slab.
I must admit this is my first time on the substrate thread, but I do spend a good deal of time on the lumen thread. I heard (perhaps erroneously) that colored shadows were on the list of to-dos for substrate. I was curious A. if that is in fact true, and B. if so, is there a timeline on the development?
Granted, perhaps a better question is what colored shadows refers to . In my understanding, that would essentially be refractive caustics from analytical lights, but it could perhaps refer to a different phenomenon?
Thanks @Frenetic , reported.
@jblackwell Having colored shadow is definitely on the list of things we would like to see supported. As in: a translucent surface with colored transmittance should cast a translucent and colored shadow. Caustics would be another level of complexity above such shadow. We are definitely not there yet and there is no ETA at this stage.
2 Likes
Been messing with glints, seems they have a problem with regular shadowmaps for local lights where a blocky outline will be shown where a material that uses glints meets a non-glints material.
It only seems to affect regular shadowmaps for local lights, I tested VSM, Raytraced Shadows, and Distance Field shadows… all seemed to work fine.
Btw any tips on making convincing snow? 
That snow looks absolutely spectacular…what settings are you using to achieve the scattering effect?
I’m basically not doing anything interesting at all. Here’s the material:
It’s just mean free path doing all the work. Glints definitely gives a more “wet” look, you can set it to 0 to get a more powdered effect.
I’m using random megascans assets, they come with an albedo/DRT/Normal; I just wildly guessed that “T” in the “DRT” stood for transmission or something so I multiplied it against the MFP 
In direct sunlight, when the sun is at your back I feel like there’s too much light in the cavities, but well… I’m not sure. I thought maybe there was too much forward scattering so I tried adjusting the phase anisotropy but it doesn’t seem to do anything. Maybe its fine and I’ve just been staring at it for too long.
On a totally unrelated note I was expecting auto-exposure to completely destroy this (as it has a tendency to do with snow) but apparently it seems to now be calculated based off of illuminance?? or something, it works shockingly well.
2 Likes