Is there any way from a “BluePrint” not from the Materials editor, to get an ORD and take the blue channel?
An approximation would be
With a variable like “Texture 2D” → “Apply Displace from TextureMap”, the problem is that i cant get the blue channel texture.
How can I take the blue channel texture and bind it to “Apply Displace from TextureMap”
Hey there @Drakgoku! I assume by “Apply Displace from TextureMap” you’re referencing the modeling displacement tools, are you working with generated SMs?
For normal intents and purposes I usually recommend people have a master material or parent material in which: In the material editor you’d have to have a texture param (set by BP) setup and already taking each of the channels and splitting them and blending them into the WPO when necessary by param via BP. Would something like that work for your use case?
Yes, I reference the displacement tools from Blueprint with the function “Apply Displace from TextureMap”, taking the ORD with a “Texture 2D”.
generated SMs (static meshes), no. I use GenerateDynamicMesh.
The problem is that in UE5, scrolling is deprecated and I’m looking to do it with BP.
I think I’m going to leave it, the tessellation is too much work (increase in polygons by dividing them, texture application…), it takes a long time to render. (Even if you put a “branch” the slowness it can cause gives a lot of headache.
Also the issue of performance… all this to avoid compromising the figure… with the modeling tools.
Has no sense. I’ll wait to see if UE5 comes up with something on this topic.
On the other hand, the UE5 modeling tool, when you apply displacement and the ORD map with the blue channel, does not do it correctly. I have tried all the combinations and I think
1 - The UE5 modeling tools with the displacement is not correct.
I have watched 100 videos and general users who do tests, the result seems correct to them. I do not think so.
2 - I think it will be better to take a detailed piece because the displacement of the integrated UE tool “is useless”. Well, if you’re making things out of plastic then yes. Otherwise, no.
So I already solved the doubt.
Solution, leave the low poly. That’s a pretty expert answer. A priori it doesn’t seem like it… but think about it.
It’s like the UV maps don’t match the offset. Why? No idea, I didn’t do the textures. So when you apply tessellation to increase the poly and then apply a magnitude to the offset they don’t match the UVs. I’m… exhausted from spending a week or more with this. Good luck to the warrior who faces this and good luck to the mathematician who tries to fix this from the development team is going to need it.
Ahh yeah that is definitely a bit of a problem for this case, this is one of the downsides of losing tessellation. Nanite fills most of it’s use cases now, but when it comes to generating dynamic meshes not so much. I also agree the modeling tools displacement definitely needs work and wouldn’t help out in this regard. Actually subdividing the mesh is so painful for performance, so I see the issue here. Apologies wish I had a better alternative for you there!
I leave it as a final note.
The UV’s maps don’t seem to agree with the displacement.
Apparently it seems that if they work,
I do see that deformation, not sure if it’s from the map or not, but UV map resolution plays a massive part, but in many cases scale does end up causing issues. How high is the UV map res for this specifically?
I found another way to fix this.
