photoshop's 3d elements

[Torkuda]

So, looking at photoshop and programs like Armorpaint and even substance painter I have to ask myself- Everyone has Photoshop, which has allowed hand-painting of 3d models for over a decade, and I'd be surprised if the already great tools from all those years ago didn't improve dramatically, there being no shortage of customers who use them. However- why then get Armorpaint or Substance? What are the heavy drawbacks/limitations of Photoshop that other programs, even ones from Adobe itself, are developed to fill in the gaps? Heck, Substance is WAAAAAAY more expensive than Photoshop and best I can tell it's Photoshop that's less dispensible. But from the folks who LIKE photoshop, hence asking here- what is it lacking on 3d texturing?

[davescm]

Aside from the fact that 3D in Photoshop was buggy, is deprecated and is to be removed, the main issue it had for texturing, compared to Substance Painter, is that Photoshop  did not have the ability to easily paint, mask, and blend in the multiple material channels that a proper 3D texturing application has. Neither could it bake from high poly to low poly, or use material IDs to control material masks. Every one of Painter's tools is designed to work in 3D. In addition the 3D subscriptions give access to Adobe 3D assets which is a vast library of materials.

I do a lot of 3D work and Photoshop has its place in my workflow but only for the 2D elements such as compositing and finishing at which it excels.

Dave

[Torkuda]

Oh. So... when I was in college over a decade ago, photoshop was jumping into 3d with a slightly buggy but superior approach- for the time. All this time later... it's being dropped. Well that sucks. Not that just using photoshop's 2d features on a series of UV islands isn't good itself, but to have the result displayed in the same program was the nice idea- even if buggy it had it's merits over switching.

I gave up and purchased photoshop again because of it's streamlined volume of tools that far surpasses GIMP for a decent enough subscription price but... well 16$ one-time fee vs 50 bucks a month is a lot harder to justify. Maybe if I ever start making that much money off models but- seems substance painter, even if it is better, is kind of meant as a company thing. Super expensive for an individual looking to make a few bucks on the side.

[Torkuda]

In that case, any tips for a workflow that involves Armorpaint- or should I start a new topic for that?

[davescm]

The texturing applications (Substance Designer, Substance Sampler and Substance Painter) are $19.99/mo including 30 texturing asset downloads and 100GB cloud storage.

The 3D Collection, at $50/month adds Stager to the applications and increases the 3D asset downloads to 50 per month which can be both models and materials

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html

I've never used Amorpaint and this would be the wrong community to ask. You are better off asking on their own forum.

Dave