Texture maps (HELP!!!)

Yeah, this can be confusing... Here is a youtube video that might help.
Cheers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjGCtnEDDeU

Alright, I found the answer.
If anyone is interested - have a look at this tread: http://j.gs/13702719/textures
(I used a link shortener which means you will be re-directed after 5 seconds!)
Good luck everyone!

I am not that good at texturing. As far as I know it might depend on the game/rendering engine You are going to use. Different systems support different kinds of maps. If I undestand correctly, roughness map will give your model just a shiny look. Metallic map will also reflect the surrounding area on the surface of the model. But, once again, I am not an expert. Good luck!

Can you post a render of what it is supposed to look like with the textures on? That is really messy geometry! How much did you pay for that model? The quality is really low...

I am not sure... what was the original file made in? A Geometry like that usually causes some very ugly refraction when rendered in mental ray. My advice is to get a modeler to redo the topology and fix those messy faces. Even by triangular game models it looks like a nightmare! Thanks for sharing the images!

This is one of those artists who tricks buyers! The model looks great in the pictures with rendering etc... but you see what kind of geometry you got from it... So long as it renders as well as what is shown on their pictures and works in your scene you are fine but else you got a lemon my friend.

Thanks! I will take a look :) I am glad it worked out! :) Have a great weekend!

Sure! Bad geometry causes the biggest troubles during animation projects. If you want to apply dynamics to the bed sheets or you want to render in mental ray or other rendering engines that will give you realistic lighting effects with light diffusion, refractions etc.. then the light will react very oddly where you do not have proper positioning of quads, triangles etc... In general models should only either have triangles or quads, sometimes both but never have any geometry that has more than 4 sides to it.

@filipaaofficial, that bedding geometry is perfectly ok. Don't listen to marvimation as he's clearly don't know what he is talking about. Those triangles are result of decimation (optimization) process. Original mesh probably has several millions polygons, you wouldn't want to have such hevy mesh in your scene optimized for VR. Also, as far as i see that model has accompanying normal map, which makes final render nearly indistinguishable from original high polygon mesh. That is a good model and not a trickery, like some loud speaking lads would like to think. Yes, those triangles could make some troubles with refraction or very glossy reflections, but common, who uses refraction with fabric materials? Even complete noobs don't do that.

Nice to hear that. As for the maps, if your cheetah renderer uses specular glossiness workflow with IOR, then you can safely skip metalic map (for your bed it should be completely black anyway), invert roughness map and plug it into glossiness slot. Other maps should fit without modifications, well maybe except normal map - it may require green channel to be inverted in order to look correct.

Limonadinis is right about the compression thing but he is wrong about it being good geometry. If anyone applied to a 3D job and posted that kind of geometry in their portfolio they would never get the job. Fact is for most games and film industry comps will reject that kind of geometry. That kind of geometry only flies in interior design firms but even then you wouldn't put something like that on your portfolio. You would just show the rendered version.

While i certainly agree that this isn't best possible topology and one that you probably wouldn't want to show in your portfolio, the fact is that it still is valid topology for a given purpose. This bed isn't hero object, nor standalone asset, it's just a small prop in a bigger model collection that is optimized for low poly count. That means that some trade offs has to be considered. Yes, modeller could take extra step and do proper retopology with mostly quads, but then again, that would be another level of quality and another price range. Like this one: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/max-interior-scene/877131 This scene at TS is made by world wide known respaectable professional and even there, if you'll look closely, you'll find meshes with similar topology, because frankly this is industry standart for complex fabrics meant for archviz usage. Nobody in their sane mind would buy such model and expect it to have deformational animation friendly topology, not to speak about some refraction nonsense.

I agree with limonadinis, such geometry is no problem in many cases, this type of topology will indeed generate problems for animation deformations, but otherwise if it does not generate rendering/smoothing issues and is only for static uses then it's ok to use them.

Studio's with own rendering farms will avoid this type of models for technical reasons, but in most other cases it's not a problem.

For independent users/freelancers using off the shelf rendering software, this type of models can actually be a bargain because these type of models usually are inexpensive because they take far less time to make and they indeed render fine in most cases.

Also a triangulated mesh can still be subdivided if mesh density proves to be a problem or generate render issues, etc.

There is a market for this type of models so nothing wrong when the user is informed.

For some it can look unprofessional but that maybe more of a personal bias or preference of doing things.

Also see no problem to put it in a portfolio if you also have models that display your perfect topology ability's.

The models could for example display your fast sculpting ability's next to your other modeling ability's.