1
$\begingroup$

Basically there is 1 area and it is all 1 material. It consists of 3 parts/UV maps: Mountain, Soil, and Beach. The UV maps "overlap" each other which means that the faces of transition between the parts are in both/all three of the UV maps.

The layers of the textures have an order: First there is the mountain, then there is the soil which covers a bit of the mountain, then there is the beach which covers some of the mountain and the soil. The soil and beach textures have slightly transparent parts at the transition.

I use the general Color/Normal/Occlusion/Specularity setup for each of the textures. In the end the different parts shall all have their own diffuse and glossy shaders, the mountain f.e. gets a slightly red gloss to it.

Now there is the problem that the faces of the transition seem to be "diffused twice" you can see that they are way brighter: enter image description here (note that it really is just the faces of the transition not the whole mountain even if it might look a little like this in the screenshot.)

Here is an image of the node setup, sadly it is too small to read it: enter image description here

Last but not least the .blend-file(too large for blend exchange):

Choose one: http://www.file-upload.net/download-10862405/area.blend.html http://www.megafileupload.com/5157/area.blend

To sum it up: Is there a way to diffuse it all with the same brightness whilst remaining separate color and normal maps plus separate specularity maps and glossy shaders. Aka "how to set it up correctly".

EDIT: Here are the textures packed in a .zip:

http://www.file-upload.net/download-10862545/textures.zip.html

http://www.megafileupload.com/5176/textures.zip

EDIT: The answer of PGmath might work but in my case it doesn't because the textures are "hand painted" and they already have transparent parts at the borders and stuff. Isn't there another way to achieve this? I cannot use the mask method, I'd have to do the whole thing again.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I suspect those add shaders at the end, but it'll be hard to tell how to fix it without the textures.. Could you upload a version with packed textures? $\endgroup$
    – gandalf3
    Commented Aug 24, 2015 at 23:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think gandalf3 is right, why are you using add shaders? $\endgroup$
    – PGmath
    Commented Aug 24, 2015 at 23:13
  • $\begingroup$ @gandalf3 Thought that you might need the textures too. I added download links for the zipped textures. You will have to reassign them manually, the nodes tell you the names. $\endgroup$
    – Jonathan
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 0:30
  • $\begingroup$ @PGmath I used mix shaders before which were "even more wrong" so I switched to the add shaders. I am not really skilled with the node editor yet, it was merely a trial and error. $\endgroup$
    – Jonathan
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 0:33

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

I think you are going about what you are trying to accomplish the wrong way. The way multiple different materials are usually combined is by using a mask. A mask is basically a black and white map where black areas correspond to one material and white areas correspond to another material.

To set this up in the node editor just use a mix shader and plug the mask into the fac input. This will make lighter areas of the mask give the output shader more of the second input and darker areas give more of the first input.

enter image description here
Note: make sure you set the image texture node for the mask to non-color data.

Here is a rendered visualization of just the mask plugged into a diffuse shader across a piece of randomly generated terrain:
enter image description here

And here is a render with the same mask only in the above node setup:
enter image description here

So for your case you will have to now go and create a mask which defines where each material should be. To combine more than 2 materials just create multiple masks and use multiple mix shaders in succession.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I'll check this out, TARDIS Maker also told me to do it like that. $\endgroup$
    – Jonathan
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 12:09
  • $\begingroup$ Still something unclear: A) Do I have to use 1 UV map for all of the textures then(which would be the whole area)? B) If that is so, would that mean, that in my case, I have to make all of the textures again? $\endgroup$
    – Jonathan
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ I guess this doesnt work for me, see the Edit in the question. $\endgroup$
    – Jonathan
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Jonathan Try using the alpha from the image textures to drive the mix shaders. $\endgroup$
    – PGmath
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Jonathan I just noticed your answer, glad it worked! $\endgroup$
    – PGmath
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 14:01
0
$\begingroup$

Just found the most simple solution which I was looking for all the time:

Instead of using a mask texture I just plugged the Alpha output of the latter too color textures into the Factor of the Mix Shaders.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .